Global Warming: Be Very Afraid
Roger Coppock
WN: Isn't part of the problem that people associate "warm" with
comfortable?
Kolbert: People think, "I won't have to go to Florida anymore. Florida
will come to me." People should realize that warmth doesn't mean
Florida. It means New York is underwater. It may be that certain places
like Siberia are more comfy, but it also means that they have no water.
If people say, "Why should I be worried about global warming?" I think
the answer is, "Do you like to eat?"
[ . . . ]
The entire interview is at:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/lifescience/0,70393-0.html?tw=wn_technology_5
buff82driver
in the atmosphere being able to absorb more water from the oceans and
resulting cloud cover will make a lot of solar radiation radiate back
out into space. You may see a very slight temperature rise which in
some climates may be more extreme given we are dealing with averages
but on the whole warming will be a good thing for humanity. Any
reduction in say water supply due to draughts from a warming will take
so long that we will be able to deal with it by using special plants to
remove the salt from seawater and pump it to where its needed,
irrigation canals, river diversion etc. A large portion of Earth's
surface to cold to support significant human activities will open up to
settlement. Just think how Canada will be affected as they will be able
to settle the rest of thier country. Small low-lying islands will be
protected by coral reefs as they always do growing closer to the
surface weakening wave action and the rise in sea level can be combated
by adding sand to the beaches to effectively raise the land level even
if inland its at or below sea level. Any negative effects will be far
outweighed by the postive and long term changes we will be able to
adapt to.
d...@dan.com
it's a good thing it'll warm the globe.
1. It already has warmed the globe.
2. So we're going to pump all the American midwest's water, including for
crops, from the coasts or Great Lakes? Uh huh.
3. Your comments on islands don't match up with reality.
http://www.itvs.org/risingwaters/islands.html
"buff82driver" <buff82...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143683850.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Roger Coppock
rant are Lindzen's InfraRed Iris theory, totally
discredited years ago. (Search this newsgroup
for that debate.) The rest of your drivel would
benefit from the correct use of a paragraph break
once in a while.
Scott Nudds
"buff82driver" <buff82...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Global warming won't warm the globe b/c the increased heat will result
> in the atmosphere being able to absorb more water from the oceans and
> resulting cloud cover will make a lot of solar radiation radiate back
> out into space.
The fact that the virtually every scientist in the world disagrees with you
doesn't disuade you from believing that bullshit now does it?
What does this tell us about your capacity to reason?
What does this tell us about your capacity to comprehend?
Snicker...
effty
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:hbJWf.62053$fd....@read2.cgocable.net...
I recently read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. It's a good read about
global warming. I highly recommend it. People have all kind of weird ideas
about global warming. This book covers all the common arguments.
If you'd like to learn more about the issue, check it out.
For example, I learned a couple things about the oceans and greenhouse
gases.
#1. As the oceans get warmer, they are able to hold less CO2.
#2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
#3. Plants respirate water vapor through the same stomata where they take
in CO2. If you've ever taken biology class or looked at a leaf under a
microscope, you know these stomata open and close. The higher the
atmospheric CO2, the less often the stomata need to open. Thus, the higher
the atmospheric CO2, the less water vapor plants give off. It's not
actually beneficial for the plants to lose water. Water vapor is also a
greenhouse gas, but in places like the Amazon rainforest it allows
ecosystems to create their own rain. One computer simulation shows the
Amazon turning to desert as CO2 levels rise.
Also, these super-computer weather simulations have gotten better and
better. Nothing they predict is actually very good news.
~e.
Lloyd Parker
It already is, so you're lying.
>the increased heat will result
>in the atmosphere being able to absorb more water from the oceans and
>resulting cloud cover will make a lot of solar radiation radiate back
>out into space. You may see a very slight temperature rise which in
>some climates may be more extreme given we are dealing with averages
>but on the whole warming will be a good thing for humanity.
Idiot.
>Any
>reduction in say water supply due to draughts from a warming will take
>so long that we will be able to deal with it by using special plants to
>remove the salt from seawater and pump it to where its needed,
>irrigation canals, river diversion etc. A large portion of Earth's
>surface to cold to support significant human activities will open up to
>settlement. Just think how Canada will be affected as they will be able
>to settle the rest of thier country.
What about topsoil? Rainfall?
And are you going to move Bangla Desh to Canada?
>Small low-lying islands will be
>protected by coral reefs as they always do growing closer to the
>surface weakening wave action and the rise in sea level can be combated
>by adding sand to the beaches to effectively raise the land level even
>if inland its at or below sea level. Any negative effects will be far
>outweighed by the postive and long term changes we will be able to
>adapt to.
When pigs fly.
Sport Pilot
Global warming would make the earth wetter not dryer. Yes the desserts
will be hotter and dryier, but the rest of the planet will be wetter.
More chicken little scare tatics, no solutions.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Sport Pilot wrote:
> More chicken little scare tatics, no solutions.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Sport Pilot
effty wrote:
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
> news:hbJWf.62053$fd....@read2.cgocable.net...
> >
> > "buff82driver" <buff82...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> Global warming won't warm the globe b/c the increased heat will result
> >> in the atmosphere being able to absorb more water from the oceans and
> >> resulting cloud cover will make a lot of solar radiation radiate back
> >> out into space.
> >
> > The fact that the virtually every scientist in the world disagrees with
> > you
> > doesn't disuade you from believing that bullshit now does it?
> >
> > What does this tell us about your capacity to reason?
> >
> > What does this tell us about your capacity to comprehend?
> >
> > Snicker...
> >
>
> I recently read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. It's a good read about
> global warming. I highly recommend it. People have all kind of weird ideas
> about global warming. This book covers all the common arguments.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mwvwv
>
> If you'd like to learn more about the issue, check it out.
>
>
> For example, I learned a couple things about the oceans and greenhouse
> gases.
> #1. As the oceans get warmer, they are able to hold less CO2.
Having worked with boiler water chemistry, I can say that this is
untrue. CO2 disolves better in warm water than wet. It turns to
carbonic acid when hot enough, but it is still in the water. Besides
the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
> #3. Plants respirate water vapor through the same stomata where they take
> in CO2. If you've ever taken biology class or looked at a leaf under a
> microscope, you know these stomata open and close. The higher the
> atmospheric CO2, the less often the stomata need to open. Thus, the higher
> the atmospheric CO2, the less water vapor plants give off. It's not
> actually beneficial for the plants to lose water. Water vapor is also a
> greenhouse gas, but in places like the Amazon rainforest it allows
> ecosystems to create their own rain. One computer simulation shows the
> Amazon turning to desert as CO2 levels rise.
.A crock. In fact actual experments with plant exposure shows that
most plants will have slightly better growth rates with increased CO2.
In fact I recall that they predicted future space travel with hdroponic
gardens using high percentages of CO2 to help increase growth rates.
>
> Also, these super-computer weather simulations have gotten better and
> better. Nothing they predict is actually very good news.
As have the biased programers, now the computers lie better than ever.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Sport Pilot wrote:
> > For example, I learned a couple things about the oceans and greenhouse
> > gases.
> > #1. As the oceans get warmer, they are able to hold less CO2.
>
> Having worked with boiler water chemistry, I can say that this is
> untrue. CO2 disolves better in warm water than wet. It turns to
> carbonic acid when hot enough, but it is still in the water. Besides
> the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
All CO2 dissolved in water is known as carbonic acid. That's it's name.
Warmer water will hold more CO2 in equilibrium (some escaping as gas,
some going in from gas to liquidified solution) but any temperature of
water with CO2 in it is some dilution of Carbonic Acid.
> > #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
> > ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>
> Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
> You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
It only takes one degree, from 32F to 33F to go from ice to water.
Every substance in the universe has a melting point.
Hey, HAMMER is going to prison, one more organized crime Republican in
the SLAMMER. And you are going to be Ms Sportpilot on your cellblock
not too long from now. Fraud is a CRIME.
John Beardmore
Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>
>effty wrote:
>> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
>> news:hbJWf.62053$fd....@read2.cgocable.net...
>> >
>> > "buff82driver" <buff82...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> Global warming won't warm the globe b/c the increased heat will result
>> >> in the atmosphere being able to absorb more water from the oceans and
>> >> resulting cloud cover will make a lot of solar radiation radiate back
>> >> out into space.
>> >
>> > The fact that the virtually every scientist in the world disagrees with
>> > you
>> > doesn't disuade you from believing that bullshit now does it?
>> >
>> > What does this tell us about your capacity to reason?
>> >
>> > What does this tell us about your capacity to comprehend?
>> >
>> > Snicker...
>> >
>>
>> I recently read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. It's a good read about
>> global warming. I highly recommend it. People have all kind of weird ideas
>> about global warming. This book covers all the common arguments.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/mwvwv
>>
>> If you'd like to learn more about the issue, check it out.
>>
>>
>> For example, I learned a couple things about the oceans and greenhouse
>> gases.
>> #1. As the oceans get warmer, they are able to hold less CO2.
>
>Having worked with boiler water chemistry,
Ooo... Do tell...
> I can say that this is
>untrue.
Really ? Once upon a time I did a chemistry degree and you're making my
toe itch... As I recall, most gas solubilities decline with
temperature, and see
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03416.htm !
Please accept that "Solubility decreases with increasing
temperature" unless you provide evidence to the contrary !
> CO2 disolves better in warm water than wet.
Seldom seen it dry. At least not in the ocean !
> It turns to
>carbonic acid when hot enough, but it is still in the water.
It doesn't suddenly turn to carbonic acid. It's in equilibrium with it
at any concentration.
> Besides
>the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
All rain contains some carbonic acid as does the ocean.
>> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
>> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>
>Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
>> #3. Plants respirate water vapor through the same stomata where they take
>> in CO2. If you've ever taken biology class or looked at a leaf under a
>> microscope, you know these stomata open and close. The higher the
>> atmospheric CO2, the less often the stomata need to open. Thus, the higher
>> the atmospheric CO2, the less water vapor plants give off. It's not
>> actually beneficial for the plants to lose water. Water vapor is also a
>> greenhouse gas, but in places like the Amazon rainforest it allows
>> ecosystems to create their own rain. One computer simulation shows the
>> Amazon turning to desert as CO2 levels rise.
>
>.A crock.
Which bit ?
> In fact actual experments with plant exposure shows that
>most plants will have slightly better growth rates with increased CO2.
Up to a point.
>In fact I recall that they predicted future space travel with hdroponic
>gardens using high percentages of CO2 to help increase growth rates.
Growth will always be limited by something, and in a lot of cases it
won't be CO2. This is why all the excess CO2 in the air isn't being
mopped up by plants.
>> Also, these super-computer weather simulations have gotten better and
>> better. Nothing they predict is actually very good news.
>
>As have the biased programers, now the computers lie better than ever.
And you are in a position to do better simulations that are open to peer
review ? What did you find out ?
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
Sport Pilot
carbonates and other minerals which CO2 will disolve with. Also at
depth CO2 disolves more readily under pressure. In fact much of the
CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
>
> > CO2 disolves better in warm water than wet.
>
> Seldom seen it dry. At least not in the ocean !
>
Mind got off track a bit should have been cold.
>
> > It turns to
> >carbonic acid when hot enough, but it is still in the water.
>
> It doesn't suddenly turn to carbonic acid. It's in equilibrium with it
> at any concentration.
>
The hotter and more pressure the more carbonic acid.
>
> > Besides
> >the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
>
> All rain contains some carbonic acid as does the ocean.
Minute quantites at normal sea level temperatures and pressure.
>
>
> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
> >
> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
>
> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
degree the ocean would warm up.
>
>
> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
>
> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
I have you cannot seem to make a good arguement.
>
>
> >> #3. Plants respirate water vapor through the same stomata where they take
> >> in CO2. If you've ever taken biology class or looked at a leaf under a
> >> microscope, you know these stomata open and close. The higher the
> >> atmospheric CO2, the less often the stomata need to open. Thus, the higher
> >> the atmospheric CO2, the less water vapor plants give off. It's not
> >> actually beneficial for the plants to lose water. Water vapor is also a
> >> greenhouse gas, but in places like the Amazon rainforest it allows
> >> ecosystems to create their own rain. One computer simulation shows the
> >> Amazon turning to desert as CO2 levels rise.
> >
> >.A crock.
>
> Which bit ?
>
>
> > In fact actual experments with plant exposure shows that
> >most plants will have slightly better growth rates with increased CO2.
>
> Up to a point.
>
>
> >In fact I recall that they predicted future space travel with hdroponic
> >gardens using high percentages of CO2 to help increase growth rates.
>
> Growth will always be limited by something, and in a lot of cases it
> won't be CO2. This is why all the excess CO2 in the air isn't being
> mopped up by plants.
>
>
> >> Also, these super-computer weather simulations have gotten better and
> >> better. Nothing they predict is actually very good news.
> >
> >As have the biased programers, now the computers lie better than ever.
>
> And you are in a position to do better simulations that are open to peer
> review ? What did you find out ?
>
>
Like none of the past predictions have come true!
Sport Pilot
No crime here except your slander.
Scott Nudds
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
> Global warming would make the earth wetter not dryer. Yes the desserts
> will be hotter and dryier, but the rest of the planet will be wetter.
Apparently it's very difficult for some to realize that hot areas will
become hotter and thefore become dryer, while more temporate regions will
experience a little more water - although not a lot.
Personally I don't understand the origin of their aledged confusion unless
it's all just another form of self delusion.
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
> More chicken little scare tatics, no solutions.
27 AmeriKKKans dead in the latest spate of tornadoes. Currently a record
season for tornadoes, even though it's only 2 weeks old and months are left
before it ends.
More AmeriKKKans will soon die. And the world will be more entertained.
Sport Pilot
Torndadoes means more rain. It is possible to build tornado proof
shelters. For some reason we would rather talk about the sky falling
instead of doing anything.
Jim McGinn
"John Beardmore" <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote
> And you are in a position to do better simulations that are open to peer
> review ? What did you find out ?
What we're finding is that the modelers failed to report the very low level
of confidence associated with these models so the model must be ignored.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>> Global warming would make the earth wetter not dryer. Yes the desserts
>> will be hotter and dryier, but the rest of the planet will be wetter.
>
> Apparently it's very difficult for some to realize that hot areas will
> become hotter and thefore become dryer, while more temporate regions will
> experience a little more water - although not a lot.
A warmer planet is a rainier (wetter) planet you idiot.
> Personally I don't understand the origin of their aledged confusion
> unless
> it's all just another form of self delusion.
That's because you're an ignoramus.
Jim
H2-PV NOW
> No crime here except your slander.
Not a word published by me couldn't be proved true in a court of law,
and much of it already was proved true in a FEDERAL COURT where 46
states sent their top lawmen to bring down a nationwide fraud operation
by organized crime that had some of these same crooks involved as
soldiers for the felons.
John Beardmore
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Sport
>> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >Having worked with boiler water chemistry,
>>
>> Ooo... Do tell...
>>
>>
>> > I can say that this is
>> >untrue.
>>
>> Really ? Once upon a time I did a chemistry degree and you're making my
>> toe itch... As I recall, most gas solubilities decline with
>> temperature, and see
>>
>> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03416.htm !
>>
>>
>> Please accept that "Solubility decreases with increasing
>> temperature" unless you provide evidence to the contrary !
>>
>Actually that is true,
So you were talking out of your bottom then !
> In fact much of the
>CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
So ?
>> > Besides
>> >the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
>>
>> All rain contains some carbonic acid as does the ocean.
>
>Minute quantites at normal sea level temperatures and pressure.
Depends what you call minute. Either way, saying "the plants will be
dead long before it turns to carbonic acid" is pretty meaningless.
>> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
>> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>> >
>> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
>>
>> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
>degree the ocean would warm up.
Not sure that's true.
>> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
>>
>> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
>> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
>
>I have
No - you're not even in the ball park.
> you cannot seem to make a good arguement.
I'm not trying to advance a case - I'm merely noting that yours is full
of holes.
>> And you are in a position to do better simulations that are open to peer
>> review ? What did you find out ?
>
>Like none of the past predictions have come true!
As far as I can see that's an utter lie !
The models are run against historical data to see which ones have
predictive value. They are also run against the short, medium and long
term future. Some of that short term future has now come to pass. No
doubt some models have worked better than others. Nobody claims they
are perfect - if they were, we wouldn't need to test them ! None the
less, I see no evidence that "none of the past predictions have come
true". It's a question of how good the fit is. Do you have any data,
or is your bottom in charge of the assertions you make ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
<jimm...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>"John Beardmore" <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote
As far as I know the modellers have always been fairly clear about the
limitations of the models. What you ignore or learn from them is up to
you.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
Lloyd Parker
What? Absolutely, totally false. Gases are more soluble in cold water. A
carbonated drink loses its CO2 when it warms up!
>It turns to
>carbonic acid when hot enough, but it is still in the water.
Heat a carbonated drink and tell us what happens.
>Besides
>the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
>
>> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
>> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>
>Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
>You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
Yeah, like we damaged the ozone layer!
>
>> #3. Plants respirate water vapor through the same stomata where they take
>> in CO2. If you've ever taken biology class or looked at a leaf under a
>> microscope, you know these stomata open and close. The higher the
>> atmospheric CO2, the less often the stomata need to open. Thus, the higher
>> the atmospheric CO2, the less water vapor plants give off. It's not
>> actually beneficial for the plants to lose water. Water vapor is also a
>> greenhouse gas, but in places like the Amazon rainforest it allows
>> ecosystems to create their own rain. One computer simulation shows the
>> Amazon turning to desert as CO2 levels rise.
>
>..A crock. In fact actual experments with plant exposure shows that
>most plants will have slightly better growth rates with increased CO2.
Up to a certain point; not indefinitely.
Jim McGinn
"John Beardmore" <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote
> As far as I know the modellers have always been fairly clear about the
> limitations of the models. What you ignore or learn from them is up to
> you.
What's amazing is that it seems to have never occurred to any of you GW
alarmist to ask what level of confidence should be associated with these
computer model results.
Jim
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
There are independent proofs of Global Warming. Models are not the
proof -- they help understand the consequences of the science that has
proved Global Warming is a real and present danger.
Eric Swanson
Reference please....
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>> As far as I know the modellers have always been fairly clear about the
>>> limitations of the models. What you ignore or learn from them is up to
>>> you.
>>
>>What's amazing is that it seems to have never occurred to any of you GW
>>alarmist to ask what level of confidence should be associated with these
>>computer model results.
Okay. I'll reference any of the hundreds of posts in this NG where you GW
whackos made reference to the models as indications of catastrophic AGW and
failed to discuss or even mention the limitations in confidence associated
with these models. If you have any trouble finding specific instances of
this I suggest you read upthread.
Jim
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
You Ms Jim, are the one having a hissyfit over models. The evidence for
Global Warming is the physics of CO2 and IR interactions with the
model, catastrophic storms and weather disruptions, coral bleachings,
widespread global flooding patterns, massive destructions of ecosystems
from worsened droughts and forest diseases.
You like to be fixated on models. Models merely illustrate the types of
ranges of things which could occur someday DEPENDING on how people
behave through time. The NEWS HEADLINES are TODAY! You are
bait-and-switch sweeping under the rug all the other evidence by
claiming models are of supreme importance.
Jim McGinn
"Global_Warming @Peacemail.com" <Global_...@Peacemail.com> wrote
> You Ms Jim, are the one having a hissyfit over models. The evidence for
> Global Warming is the physics of CO2 and IR interactions with the
> model,
Wait a minute. Now I'm confused. Didn't you just state, no longer than a
half an hour ago, that the models are irrelevant?
catastrophic storms and weather disruptions, coral bleachings,
> widespread global flooding patterns, massive destructions of ecosystems
> from worsened droughts and forest diseases.
References?
>
> You like to be fixated on models. Models merely illustrate the types of
> ranges of things which could occur someday DEPENDING on how people
> behave through time. The NEWS HEADLINES are TODAY!
I think this is the most accurate thing you've stated. The only thing
causing global warming of any kind is the headlines.
> You are
> bait-and-switch sweeping under the rug all the other evidence by
> claiming models are of supreme importance.
Without the models all you loons have left are your six trails of
pseudoscience.
Jim
Scott Nudds
The support of organized crime is itself a crime, and that is the crime to
which you are guilty.
However you may be also guilty of other crimes that we as yet do not know
of.
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
Your question "what level of confidence should be associated with these
computer model results" is what I was wondering about. Just what sort of
answer do you expect to receive from this line of inquiry? Why "should"
there be any such "level" and define what "level" means. Reference please.
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote in message
news:e0v4j8$fs95$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> In article <ZGDYf.64462$Jd.3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
> jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
>>
>>
>>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>
>>>>> As far as I know the modellers have always been fairly clear about the
>>>>> limitations of the models. What you ignore or learn from them is up
>>>>> to
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>>What's amazing is that it seems to have never occurred to any of you GW
>>>>alarmist to ask what level of confidence should be associated with these
>>>>computer model results.
>>
>>Okay. I'll reference any of the hundreds of posts in this NG where you GW
>>whackos made reference to the models as indications of catastrophic AGW
>>and
>>failed to discuss or even mention the limitations in confidence associated
>>with these models. If you have any trouble finding specific instances of
>>this I suggest you read upthread.
>
> Your question "what level of confidence should be associated with these
> computer model results" is what I was wondering about. Just what sort of
> answer do you expect to receive from this line of inquiry? Why "should"
> there be any such "level" and define what "level" means. Reference
> please.
Well done, Eric. This is the right question. In fact, I'm going to start a
new thread on this topic entitled, The Right Question.
Jim
Bill Miller
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GgEYf.64470$Jd.5...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"Global_Warming @Peacemail.com" <Global_...@Peacemail.com> wrote
References?
Jim <
Global Warming Hysteria Has Arrived
An Article by
Dr. Roy Spencer
His Bio.
Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of
Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He is
also a member of the TCS Science Roundtable.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=040406C
The last paragraph in this article just about tells the whole story on
GW.
Scott Nudds
> shelters.
Ya, more rain for 20 minutes over an area 2 kilometers in radius.
Is that how you intend to irrigate the dying crops of the desertifying
U.S. midwest?
Hahahahahahahahah......
Stupid AmeriakKKan moron....
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> A warmer planet is a rainier (wetter) planet you idiot.
Just slightly according to the models. But it is more humid - without
significantly more rain.
What is expected is that there will be longer periods of dryness
punctuated with shorter periods of more intense rainfall. But this of
course only in those areas that will receive more rainfall. The U.S.
midwest for example is becoming a desert.
> > Personally I don't understand the origin of their aledged confusion
> > unless it's all just another form of self delusion.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> That's because you're an ignoramus.
Yes when it comes to understanding idiocy like yours Jim, I don't have a
clue as to how to fix your deformed mind.
My only solution would be your replacement with a working mind.
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
Bill Miller wrote:
> Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of
> Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced
> Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He is
> also a member of the TCS Science Roundtable.
TCS or TechCentralStation is owned by DCI, the Swiftboaters people.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=360
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Group
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tech_Central_Station
Organized Crime figures associated with DCI / TCS include ROGER BATE,
MICHAEL FUMENTO, WILLIE SOON, SALLIE BALIUNAS, STEVEN MILLOY, GEORGE
TAYLOR, ROY SPENCER, PATRICK MICHAELS, TIM BALL, ...
http://timlambert.org/2005/11/ddt-spencer/
Many of Roy Spencer's accomplices in science frauds participated in a
major fraud in 2002 orchestrated by the arch criminal organization APCO
ASSociates:
http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=54
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
Many TCS goons were there. Spencer's co-author on science-hoax papers
was there that day: John Christy. http://snipurl.com/op7j
Results about 445 for "Roy W. Spencer" "John Christy".
When Spencer and Christy got CAUGHT faking science results they called
the "errors", but the faked results still get circulated by righwing
crime rings.
http://snipurl.com/op7n
Results about 388 for "Roy W. Spencer" "John Christy" errors.
Another TCS and (OILMEN KOCH SPONSORED) CATO FELLOW, Richard Lindzen
was involved at the same fraud event with John Christy. Lindzen is
another Spencer co-auther.
http://snipurl.com/op86
Results about 234 for "Roy W. Spencer" Lindzen.
http://snipurl.com/op6f
GOOGLE Results about 90 from heartland.org for Roy Spencer.
YUP, Spencer is involved with the tobacco peddlers at Hearthland.org,
Heartland Inst.
http://snipurl.com/op6t
Results about 615,000 for Creationist Roy W. Spencer.
How about connections to Sun Myung Moon's Discovery Institute of
'Intellegunt Desine'?
http://snipurl.com/op79
Results 26 for "Roy W. Spencer" "Discovery Institute"
In Science the ultimate penalty for science fraud is ostracism -- like
the penalty in the Korea Stem Cell fraids. FRED SINGER is outcast, and
nobody can associate with the criminal except they share his punishment
and be cast out too, but here is all of Spencer's co-authers
associating with publically known organized crime persons Singer,
Baliunais, Soon, Robinson. Spencer is definately on probation. He needs
to distance himself from known criminal science hoaxers.
Coby Beck
news:1144178097.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sport Pilot wrote:
>
>> > For example, I learned a couple things about the oceans and greenhouse
>> > gases.
>> > #1. As the oceans get warmer, they are able to hold less CO2.
>>
>> Having worked with boiler water chemistry, I can say that this is
>> carbonic acid when hot enough, but it is still in the water. Besides
>> the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
>
> Warmer water will hold more CO2 in equilibrium (some escaping as gas,
> some going in from gas to liquidified solution) but any temperature of
> water with CO2 in it is some dilution of Carbonic Acid.
Cold water holds more CO2.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
John Beardmore
<jimm...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>"John Beardmore" <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote
Never been any need to ask. It's always been stated that the models
produce a spread of results, with consequences ranging form the
unfortunate to the very unfortunate. Clearly they can't each be right -
but what's interesting, is not so much the confidence in any particular
model, but that most of the models agree that the increase in GHG levels
will cause significant warming.
Of course we should go on refining the models, but it would be rash to
dismiss the consensus among the early models when the recent ones seem
to be pointing to essentially the same conclusions.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
<jimm...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>I think this is the most accurate thing you've stated. The only thing
>causing global warming of any kind is the headlines.
Maybe you think that because it's all you read ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
<bmil...@wizard.com> writes
>Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of
>Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced
>Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He is
>also a member of the TCS Science Roundtable.
>
>http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=040406C
>
>The last paragraph in this article just about tells the whole story on
>GW.
Hmmm... And you have what direct experience of the academic funding
process ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
Sport Pilot
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <1144181163.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Sport
> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>
> >> >Having worked with boiler water chemistry,
> >>
> >> Ooo... Do tell...
> >>
> >>
> >> > I can say that this is
> >> >untrue.
> >>
> >> Really ? Once upon a time I did a chemistry degree and you're making my
> >> toe itch... As I recall, most gas solubilities decline with
> >> temperature, and see
> >>
> >> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03416.htm !
> >>
> >>
> >> Please accept that "Solubility decreases with increasing
> >> temperature" unless you provide evidence to the contrary !
> >>
> >Actually that is true,
>
> So you were talking out of your bottom then !
>
>
> > In fact much of the
> >CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
>
> So ?
>
perculates up from the bottom.
>
> >> > Besides
> >> >the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
> >>
> >> All rain contains some carbonic acid as does the ocean.
> >
> >Minute quantites at normal sea level temperatures and pressure.
>
> Depends what you call minute. Either way, saying "the plants will be
> dead long before it turns to carbonic acid" is pretty meaningless.
>
>
> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from the
> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
> >> >
> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
> >>
> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
> >degree the ocean would warm up.
>
> Not sure that's true.
>
Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
>
> >> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
> >>
> >> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
> >> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
> >
> >I have
>
> No - you're not even in the ball park.
I hit it out of the ball park, but you are not smart enough to
understand simple heat transfer.
>
>
> > you cannot seem to make a good arguement.
>
> I'm not trying to advance a case - I'm merely noting that yours is full
> of holes.
>
Which means you don't have a case.
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Sport
>> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >
>> >> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:hbJWf.62053$fd....@read2.cgocable.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "buff82driver" <buff82...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> >> Global warming won't warm the globe b/c the increased heat will
result
>> >> >> in the atmosphere being able to absorb more water from the oceans and
>> >> >> resulting cloud cover will make a lot of solar radiation radiate back
>> >> >> out into space.
>> >> >
>> >> > The fact that the virtually every scientist in the world disagrees
with
>> >> > you
>> >> > doesn't disuade you from believing that bullshit now does it?
>> >> >
>> >> > What does this tell us about your capacity to reason?
>> >> >
>> >> > What does this tell us about your capacity to comprehend?
>> >> >
>> >> > Snicker...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I recently read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. It's a good read
about
>> >> global warming. I highly recommend it. People have all kind of weird
ideas
>> >> about global warming. This book covers all the common arguments.
>> >>
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/mwvwv
>> >>
>> >> If you'd like to learn more about the issue, check it out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> gases.
>> >> #1. As the oceans get warmer, they are able to hold less CO2.
>> >
>>
>> Ooo... Do tell...
>>
>>
>> > I can say that this is
>> >untrue.
>>
>> Really ? Once upon a time I did a chemistry degree and you're making my
>> toe itch... As I recall, most gas solubilities decline with
>> temperature, and see
>>
>> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03416.htm !
>>
>>
>> Please accept that "Solubility decreases with increasing
>> temperature" unless you provide evidence to the contrary !
>>
>carbonates and other minerals which CO2 will disolve with.
Still better at lower temp.
>Also at
>depth CO2 disolves more readily under pressure.
Still better at lower temp.
>In fact much of the
>CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
And the warmer the water the less will stay dissolved.
>
>>
>> > CO2 disolves better in warm water than wet.
>>
>> Seldom seen it dry. At least not in the ocean !
>>
>Mind got off track a bit should have been cold.
>>
>> > It turns to
>> >carbonic acid when hot enough, but it is still in the water.
>>
>> It doesn't suddenly turn to carbonic acid. It's in equilibrium with it
>> at any concentration.
>>
>The hotter and more pressure the more carbonic acid.
No, the hotter, the equilibrium shifts to CO2 gas.
>>
>> > Besides
>> >the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
>>
>> All rain contains some carbonic acid as does the ocean.
>
>Minute quantites at normal sea level temperatures and pressure.
>
>>
>>
>> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from
the
>> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>> >
>> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
>>
>> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
>degree the ocean would warm up.
>
>>
>>
>> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
>>
>> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
>> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
>
>I have you cannot seem to make a good arguement.
>>
>>
>> >> #3. Plants respirate water vapor through the same stomata where they
take
>> >> in CO2. If you've ever taken biology class or looked at a leaf under a
>> >> microscope, you know these stomata open and close. The higher the
>> >> atmospheric CO2, the less often the stomata need to open. Thus, the
higher
>> >> the atmospheric CO2, the less water vapor plants give off. It's not
>> >> actually beneficial for the plants to lose water. Water vapor is also a
>> >> greenhouse gas, but in places like the Amazon rainforest it allows
>> >> ecosystems to create their own rain. One computer simulation shows the
>> >> Amazon turning to desert as CO2 levels rise.
>> >
>> >.A crock.
>>
>> Which bit ?
>>
>>
>> > In fact actual experments with plant exposure shows that
>> >most plants will have slightly better growth rates with increased CO2.
>>
>> Up to a point.
>>
>>
>> >In fact I recall that they predicted future space travel with hdroponic
>> >gardens using high percentages of CO2 to help increase growth rates.
>>
>> Growth will always be limited by something, and in a lot of cases it
>> won't be CO2. This is why all the excess CO2 in the air isn't being
>> mopped up by plants.
>>
>>
>> >> Also, these super-computer weather simulations have gotten better and
>> >> better. Nothing they predict is actually very good news.
>> >
>> >As have the biased programers, now the computers lie better than ever.
>>
Lloyd Parker
>> review ? What did you find out ?
>
>of confidence associated with these models so the model must be ignored.
>
>
As I said, the models predict quite well, so your assertion that they have a
low level of confidence is baseless.
>
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>
>>> Global warming would make the earth wetter not dryer. Yes the desserts
>>> will be hotter and dryier, but the rest of the planet will be wetter.
>>
>> Apparently it's very difficult for some to realize that hot areas will
>> become hotter and thefore become dryer, while more temporate regions will
>> experience a little more water - although not a lot.
>
>A warmer planet is a rainier (wetter) planet you idiot.
The Sahara is warmer. Is it wetter?
>
>> Personally I don't understand the origin of their aledged confusion
>> unless
>> it's all just another form of self delusion.
>
>That's because you're an ignoramus.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
Sport Pilot
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3NAYf.8391$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
> >
> >>> Global warming would make the earth wetter not dryer. Yes the desserts
> >>> will be hotter and dryier, but the rest of the planet will be wetter.
> >>
> >> Apparently it's very difficult for some to realize that hot areas will
> >> become hotter and thefore become dryer, while more temporate regions will
> >> experience a little more water - although not a lot.
> >
> >A warmer planet is a rainier (wetter) planet you idiot.
>
> The Sahara is warmer. Is it wetter?
>
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1144181163.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Sport
>> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>>
>> >> >Having worked with boiler water chemistry,
>> >>
>> >> Ooo... Do tell...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I can say that this is
>> >> >untrue.
>> >>
>> >> Really ? Once upon a time I did a chemistry degree and you're making my
>> >> toe itch... As I recall, most gas solubilities decline with
>> >> temperature, and see
>> >>
>> >> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03416.htm !
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please accept that "Solubility decreases with increasing
>> >> temperature" unless you provide evidence to the contrary !
>> >>
>> >Actually that is true,
>>
>> So you were talking out of your bottom then !
>>
>>
>> > In fact much of the
>> >CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
>>
>> So ?
>>
>So that water is under pressure and can contain much more CO2 which
>perculates up from the bottom.
But not as much as cooler water.
>
>>
>> >> > Besides
>> >> >the plants will be dead long before it turns to carbonic acid.
>> >>
>> >> All rain contains some carbonic acid as does the ocean.
>> >
>> >Minute quantites at normal sea level temperatures and pressure.
>>
>> Depends what you call minute. Either way, saying "the plants will be
>> dead long before it turns to carbonic acid" is pretty meaningless.
>>
>>
>> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized methane from
the
>> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>> >> >
>> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
>> >>
>> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
>> >degree the ocean would warm up.
>>
>> Not sure that's true.
>>
>Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
You'd also need the thermal conductance, the circulation of both, the surface
area...
John Beardmore
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1144181163.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Sport
>> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> > In fact much of the
>> >CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
>>
>> So ?
>>
>So that water is under pressure and can contain much more CO2 which
>perculates up from the bottom.
Doesn't really alter the role of the ocean as a sink for atmospheric CO2
though does it ?
>> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized
>> >> >>methane from the
>> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>> >> >
>> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
>> >>
>> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
>> >degree the ocean would warm up.
>>
>> Not sure that's true.
>>
>Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
No. Heat is transferred from a warmer bodies to cooler ones. Heat
transfer does not require that the hotter body be tens of degrees
warmer. Any temperature difference will do given time.
Look up some basic thermodynamics you idiot !
>> >> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
>> >>
>> >> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
>> >> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
>> >
>> >I have
>>
>> No - you're not even in the ball park.
>
>I hit it out of the ball park, but you are not smart enough to
>understand simple heat transfer.
ROFL !
I think I may have forgotten more of it than you ever learned !
>> > you cannot seem to make a good arguement.
>>
>> I'm not trying to advance a case - I'm merely noting that yours is full
>> of holes.
>>
>Which means you don't have a case.
No - just that I can see what's wrong with yours.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
Sport Pilot
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <1144238230.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >> In message <1144181163.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
> >> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >> >> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Sport
> >> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>
> >> > In fact much of the
> >> >CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
> >>
> >> So ?
> >>
> >So that water is under pressure and can contain much more CO2 which
> >perculates up from the bottom.
>
> Doesn't really alter the role of the ocean as a sink for atmospheric CO2
> though does it ?
>
living organism. Not from the air. In some cases surplus CO2 goes
from the ocean to air, and sometimes from air to ocean.
>
> >> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized
> >> >> >>methane from the
> >> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
> >> >>
> >> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
> >> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
> >> >degree the ocean would warm up.
> >>
> >> Not sure that's true.
> >>
> >Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
>
> No. Heat is transferred from a warmer bodies to cooler ones. Heat
> transfer does not require that the hotter body be tens of degrees
> warmer. Any temperature difference will do given time.
>
I never said it did. You are only proving you don't know what specific
heat and density is!
> Look up some basic thermodynamics you idiot !
>
Obviously you did not look it up. Look up under S for specific heat.
>
> >> >> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
> >> >>
> >> >> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
> >> >> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
> >> >
> >> >I have
> >>
> >> No - you're not even in the ball park.
> >
> >I hit it out of the ball park, but you are not smart enough to
> >understand simple heat transfer.
>
> ROFL !
>
> I think I may have forgotten more of it than you ever learned !
>
You never learned what specific heat is, or you would know I never said
the air has to be tens of degrees hotter. I said that the ocean would
only warm up a fraction for the same heat applied as for the amount the
air would warm. The same heat would warm up the air tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm.
John Beardmore
Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1144238230.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> In message <1144181163.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> >> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googl
>> >> >>egroups.com>, Sport
>> >> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >> > In fact much of the
>> >> >CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
>> >>
>> >> So ?
>> >>
>> >So that water is under pressure and can contain much more CO2 which
>> >perculates up from the bottom.
>>
>> Doesn't really alter the role of the ocean as a sink for atmospheric CO2
>> though does it ?
>>
>It is not a sink. Most of the rest of the CO2 in the ocean comes from
>living organism. Not from the air. In some cases surplus CO2 goes
>from the ocean to air, and sometimes from air to ocean.
Well, either it's a net source or a net sink. Which is it ?
>> >> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized
>> >> >> >>methane from the
>> >> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>> >> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
>> >> >degree the ocean would warm up.
>> >>
>> >> Not sure that's true.
>> >>
>> >Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
>>
>> No. Heat is transferred from a warmer bodies to cooler ones. Heat
>> transfer does not require that the hotter body be tens of degrees
>> warmer. Any temperature difference will do given time.
>>
>I never said it did.
You wrote
"The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm up".
> You are only proving you don't know what specific
>heat and density is!
Well, density is mass per unit volume or there abouts. Nothing to do
with heat at all ! How confused you are !
>> >> >> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
>> >> >> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
>> >> >
>> >> >I have
>> >>
>> >> No - you're not even in the ball park.
>> >
>> >I hit it out of the ball park, but you are not smart enough to
>> >understand simple heat transfer.
>>
>> ROFL !
>>
>> I think I may have forgotten more of it than you ever learned !
>>
>You never learned what specific heat is, or you would know I never said
>the air has to be tens of degrees hotter.
You wrote
"The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm up".
Read what you wrote and deal with it, or stop wasting every bodies time.
> I said that the ocean would
>only warm up a fraction for the same heat applied as for the amount the
>air would warm.
You said what you said. You wrote
"The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm up".
Don't see the word "fraction" in that sentence do you ?
If you are going to lie about what you said, it's far more sporting to
make us search old posts to prove that you are an utter waste of space.
Leaving the original text in makes it like kicking a puppy !
> The same heat would warm up the air tens of degrees
>for every degree the ocean would warm.
But
a) that's not what you said,
and
b) the "same heat" isn't applied to air and the ocean is it ?
So what's your point ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
Sport Pilot
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <1144328929....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Sport
> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >> In message <1144238230.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
> >> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >> >> In message <1144181163.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
> >> >> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >> >> >> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googl
> >> >> >>egroups.com>, Sport
> >> >> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>
> >> >> > In fact much of the
> >> >> >CO2 in sea water comes from underwater faults not the atmosphere.
> >> >>
> >> >> So ?
> >> >>
> >> >So that water is under pressure and can contain much more CO2 which
> >> >perculates up from the bottom.
> >>
> >> Doesn't really alter the role of the ocean as a sink for atmospheric CO2
> >> though does it ?
> >>
> >It is not a sink. Most of the rest of the CO2 in the ocean comes from
> >living organism. Not from the air. In some cases surplus CO2 goes
> >from the ocean to air, and sometimes from air to ocean.
>
> Well, either it's a net source or a net sink. Which is it ?
>
>
> >> >> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized
> >> >> >> >>methane from the
> >> >> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the surface?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
> >> >> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
> >> >> >degree the ocean would warm up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not sure that's true.
> >> >>
> >> >Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
> >>
> >> No. Heat is transferred from a warmer bodies to cooler ones. Heat
> >> transfer does not require that the hotter body be tens of degrees
> >> warmer. Any temperature difference will do given time.
> >>
> >I never said it did.
>
> You wrote
>
> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>
And for the same amount of heat asorbed it would be correct. I am not
saying that the temperature differance is the source of heat. You
don't understand enough about the subject to understand it.
> > You are only proving you don't know what specific
> >heat and density is!
>
> Well, density is mass per unit volume or there abouts. Nothing to do
> with heat at all ! How confused you are !
>
Well duffus then I guess it takes the same amount of heat to warm one
pound of water one degree as much as it does one ton! You don't even
seem to know the definition of heat. I suggest you look up what a BTU
or calorie is.
>
> >> >> >> >You are too egotistical of mans effects on this earth.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Would you care to refute his argument in a quantitative way, or would
> >> >> >> you like to resort to another ad hominem attack ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I have
> >> >>
> >> >> No - you're not even in the ball park.
> >> >
> >> >I hit it out of the ball park, but you are not smart enough to
> >> >understand simple heat transfer.
> >>
> >> ROFL !
> >>
> >> I think I may have forgotten more of it than you ever learned !
> >>
> >You never learned what specific heat is, or you would know I never said
> >the air has to be tens of degrees hotter.
>
> You wrote
>
> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>
>
> Read what you wrote and deal with it, or stop wasting every bodies time.
>
Again you are to ignorant to understand what I wrote. You obviously
don't know the differance in heat and temperature.
>
> > I said that the ocean would
> >only warm up a fraction for the same heat applied as for the amount the
> >air would warm.
>
> You said what you said. You wrote
>
> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>
> Don't see the word "fraction" in that sentence do you ?
Gee if one to tens is not a fraction I don't know what is. I guess you
don't know basic arithmetic either
> If you are going to lie about what you said, it's far more sporting to
> make us search old posts to prove that you are an utter waste of space.
> Leaving the original text in makes it like kicking a puppy !
>
>
> > The same heat would warm up the air tens of degrees
> >for every degree the ocean would warm.
>
> But
>
> a) that's not what you said,
>
> and
>
> b) the "same heat" isn't applied to air and the ocean is it ?
Actually it largely is. The sun warms up the earth, water, and air at
the same time.
>
>
> So what's your point ?
>
>
> J/.
> --
> John Beardmore ---- Complete jackass!
John Beardmore
Hope you're better at sport than science !
You could start by reading
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
>> >> >> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized
>> >> >> >> >>methane from the
>> >> >> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>> >> >> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
>> >> >> >degree the ocean would warm up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not sure that's true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
>> >>
>> >> No. Heat is transferred from a warmer bodies to cooler ones. Heat
>> >> transfer does not require that the hotter body be tens of degrees
>> >> warmer. Any temperature difference will do given time.
>> >>
>> >I never said it did.
>>
>> You wrote
>>
>> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
>> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>>
>And for the same amount of heat asorbed it would be correct.
But they don't absorb the same amount of heat ? Why ever should
they ?
> I am not
>saying that the temperature differance is the source of heat.
Oh good !
> You
>don't understand enough about the subject to understand it.
I understand enough to recognise one more clueless than myself !
>> > You are only proving you don't know what specific
>> >heat and density is!
>>
>> Well, density is mass per unit volume or there abouts. Nothing to do
>> with heat at all ! How confused you are !
>>
>Well duffus then I guess it takes the same amount of heat to warm one
>pound of water one degree as much as it does one ton!
This has what to do with density ?
Density is the mass per unit volume of a substance. Where's the heat ?
> You don't even
>seem to know the definition of heat.
:) Well, I wouldn't go about defining it in terms of density !
> I suggest you look up what a BTU
>or calorie is.
Easy. Quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of
water by 1°C. Note that it is not defined in terms of density.
>> You wrote
>>
>> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
>> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>>
>>
>> Read what you wrote and deal with it, or stop wasting every bodies time.
>>
>Again you are to ignorant to understand what I wrote. You obviously
>don't know the differance in heat and temperature.
I'm happy to let anybody who can be bothered to read this thread be the
judge of that !
>> > I said that the ocean would
>> >only warm up a fraction for the same heat applied as for the amount the
>> >air would warm.
>>
>> You said what you said. You wrote
>>
>> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
>> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>>
>> Don't see the word "fraction" in that sentence do you ?
>
>Gee if one to tens is not a fraction I don't know what is. I guess you
>don't know basic arithmetic either
Guess you don't know the difference between a fraction and a multiple,
but that's hardly the point.
>> If you are going to lie about what you said, it's far more sporting to
>> make us search old posts to prove that you are an utter waste of space.
>> Leaving the original text in makes it like kicking a puppy !
>>
>>
>> > The same heat would warm up the air tens of degrees
>> >for every degree the ocean would warm.
>>
>> But
>>
>> a) that's not what you said,
>>
>> and
>>
>> b) the "same heat" isn't applied to air and the ocean is it ?
>
>Actually it largely is. The sun warms up the earth, water, and air at
>the same time.
Well - it's certainly true the sun heats the air and ocean from the
top, also that the earth heats both from below. Trouble is though that
insolation doesn't give rise to uniform temperature distributions, and
heat flows from hot to cooler bodies.
Your hideous approximation would certainly simplify most climate models
a one liner.
>> So what's your point ?
>>
>>
>> J/.
>> --
>> John Beardmore ---- Complete jackass!
Well, like I said, I'm happy to let anybody who can be bothered to read
this thread be the judge of that !
Enjoy... J/.
--
John Beardmore
Sport Pilot
> >> >> >> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized
> >> >> >> >> >>methane from the
> >> >> >> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
> >> >> >> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees for every
> >> >> >> >degree the ocean would warm up.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not sure that's true.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
> >> >>
> >> >> No. Heat is transferred from a warmer bodies to cooler ones. Heat
> >> >> transfer does not require that the hotter body be tens of degrees
> >> >> warmer. Any temperature difference will do given time.
> >> >>
> >> >I never said it did.
> >>
> >> You wrote
> >>
> >> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
> >> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
> >>
> >And for the same amount of heat asorbed it would be correct.
>
> But they don't absorb the same amount of heat ? Why ever should
> they ?
>
That was my point! But you don't know the differance in basic
themodynamic concepts like the differance between heat and temperature.
>
> > I am not
> >saying that the temperature differance is the source of heat.
>
> Oh good !
>
>
> > You
> >don't understand enough about the subject to understand it.
>
> I understand enough to recognise one more clueless than myself !
>
>
> >> > You are only proving you don't know what specific
> >> >heat and density is!
> >>
> >> Well, density is mass per unit volume or there abouts. Nothing to do
> >> with heat at all ! How confused you are !
> >>
> >Well duffus then I guess it takes the same amount of heat to warm one
> >pound of water one degree as much as it does one ton!
>
> This has what to do with density ?
Well if you don't know what mass and weight and density have in common
then you are hopeless.
>
> Density is the mass per unit volume of a substance. Where's the heat ?
>
Heat is the flow of molecular kinetic energy. More mass more stored
heat.
>
> > You don't even
> >seem to know the definition of heat.
>
> :) Well, I wouldn't go about defining it in terms of density !
>
>
> > I suggest you look up what a BTU
> >or calorie is.
>
> Easy. Quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of
> water by 1°C. Note that it is not defined in terms of density.
>
So? It just means you don't understand the realationship. Now that
you have bothered to look it up.
>
> >> You wrote
> >>
> >> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
> >> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
> >>
> >>
> >> Read what you wrote and deal with it, or stop wasting every bodies time.
> >>
> >Again you are to ignorant to understand what I wrote. You obviously
> >don't know the differance in heat and temperature.
>
> I'm happy to let anybody who can be bothered to read this thread be the
> judge of that !
>
>
> >> > I said that the ocean would
> >> >only warm up a fraction for the same heat applied as for the amount the
> >> >air would warm.
> >>
> >> You said what you said. You wrote
> >>
> >> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
> >> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
> >>
> >> Don't see the word "fraction" in that sentence do you ?
> >
> >Gee if one to tens is not a fraction I don't know what is. I guess you
> >don't know basic arithmetic either
>
> Guess you don't know the difference between a fraction and a multiple,
> but that's hardly the point.
So I guess you don't know what a reciprocal is either.
>
>
> >> If you are going to lie about what you said, it's far more sporting to
> >> make us search old posts to prove that you are an utter waste of space.
> >> Leaving the original text in makes it like kicking a puppy !
> >>
> >>
> >> > The same heat would warm up the air tens of degrees
> >> >for every degree the ocean would warm.
> >>
> >> But
> >>
> >> a) that's not what you said,
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> b) the "same heat" isn't applied to air and the ocean is it ?
> >
> >Actually it largely is. The sun warms up the earth, water, and air at
> >the same time.
>
> Well - it's certainly true the sun heats the air and ocean from the
> top, also that the earth heats both from below. Trouble is though that
> insolation doesn't give rise to uniform temperature distributions, and
> heat flows from hot to cooler bodies.
>
So you bring up something outside the topic as proof?
> Your hideous approximation would certainly simplify most climate models
> a one liner.
>
>
> >> So what's your point ?
> >>
> >>
> >> J/.
> >> --
> >> John Beardmore ----
>
Sport Pilot
No mass, no density, no heat. More density more heat stored per unit
volume. Water has more mass so the temperature of the air will be
warmed tens of degrees above the water before the water raises one
degree. That is why oceans are generally cooler near the surface.
Phil Bradshaw
> No mass, no density, no heat. More density more heat stored per unit
> volume. Water has more mass so the temperature of the air will be
> warmed tens of degrees above the water before the water raises one
> degree. That is why oceans are generally cooler near the surface.
Em. Air over water temperature differential needed to raise water
temperature I buy, differential according to surface:masses ratio. Oceans
being generally cooler near the surface in consequence needs some
explaining though.
Sport Pilot
No. I was trying to say that for a unit volume of air it would have to
be tens of degrees hotter to transfer all of that heat to water and
visa versa. That is because the air is thinner with less mass it will
be at a higher temp to have the same heat. That is why in general the
ocean is much cooler, and even colder down lower. As you get to the
bottom of the ocean it gets warmer because of the heat picked up from
the earth itself.
However warm water currents do occur at the surface and a primary mover
for hurricanes. But most of the ocean is below that. Since the ocean
currents are mostly solar powered and we got of the solar high a couple
of years ago, I seriously doubt global warming is a primary factor.
John Beardmore
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1144342791.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> In message <1144328929....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Sport
>> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> >> In message <1144238230.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >> >> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> >> >> In message <1144181163.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> Sport Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> >> >> >> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In message <1144176692....@i40g2000cwc.googl
>> >> >> >> >>egroups.com>, Sport
>> >> >> >> >> Pilot <hppil...@cs.com> writes
>> Hope you're better at sport than science !
>>
>> You could start by reading
>>
>> http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
>>
>And you could start with a first grade arithmetic text book.
Tell you what, go and sharpen your claws on the soft furnishings.
>> >> >> >> >> >> #2. Warming oceans allow for the release of crystalized
>> >> >> >> >> >>methane from the
>> >> >> >> >> >> ocean floor. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Like a degree or two will make a differance miles below the
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As the sea warms up it seems inevitable.
>> >> >> >> >The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >degree the ocean would warm up.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not sure that's true.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Look up the specific heat and density of water VS air you idiot!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No. Heat is transferred from a warmer bodies to cooler ones. Heat
>> >> >> transfer does not require that the hotter body be tens of degrees
>> >> >> warmer. Any temperature difference will do given time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >I never said it did.
>> >>
>> >> You wrote
>> >>
>> >> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
>> >> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>> >>
>> >And for the same amount of heat asorbed it would be correct.
>>
>> But they don't absorb the same amount of heat ? Why ever should
>> they ?
>>
>That was my point!
Really ? It was you who wrote
"The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm up".
As though the Earths atmosphere would HAVE to warm up "tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm up".
If that wasn't what you meant, you should have written what you did
mean.
>But you don't know the differance in basic
>themodynamic concepts like the differance between heat and temperature.
So you say, yet you seem unable to point to anything I have written to
support your allegation.
>> >> > You are only proving you don't know what specific
>> >> >heat and density is!
>> >>
>> >> Well, density is mass per unit volume or there abouts. Nothing to do
>> >> with heat at all ! How confused you are !
>> >>
>> >Well duffus then I guess it takes the same amount of heat to warm one
>> >pound of water one degree as much as it does one ton!
>>
>> This has what to do with density ?
>
>Well if you don't know what mass and weight and density have in common
>then you are hopeless.
Oh I do. It's just that it has nothing to with specific heat capacity.
You were the one that raised the matter of density. Why ?
>> Density is the mass per unit volume of a substance. Where's the heat ?
>
>Heat is the flow of molecular kinetic energy.
Heat need not 'flow' at all, yet a body still possesses it.
> More mass more stored
>heat.
So are you talking about mass now, or density ? And why, since the
temperature rise for a given heat input depends on specific capacity
which is not the same as mass or density anyway ? And why talk about
temperature rise for a given heat input to air and water as though they
got the same heat input when there is no reason to expect that anyway ?
And why say "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm up" as though it would ?
>> > I suggest you look up what a BTU
>> >or calorie is.
>>
>> Easy. Quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of
>> water by 1°C. Note that it is not defined in terms of density.
>>
>So? It just means you don't understand the realationship. Now that
>you have bothered to look it up.
What each of us writes says more about what we know than petty back
biting allegations. I suggest that before you run about calling names
and biting ankles, you look at what you have written.
>> >> > I said that the ocean would
>> >> >only warm up a fraction for the same heat applied as for the amount the
>> >> >air would warm.
>> >>
>> >> You said what you said. You wrote
>> >>
>> >> "The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
>> >> for every degree the ocean would warm up".
>> >>
>> >> Don't see the word "fraction" in that sentence do you ?
>> >
>> >Gee if one to tens is not a fraction I don't know what is. I guess you
>> >don't know basic arithmetic either
>>
>> Guess you don't know the difference between a fraction and a multiple,
>> but that's hardly the point.
>
>So I guess you don't know what a reciprocal is either.
Indeed I do, but it was you that wrote
"The earth atmosphere would have to warm up tens of degrees
for every degree the ocean would warm up".
To justify this assertion, you later say "The same heat would warm up
the air tens of degrees for every degree the ocean would warm".
If the crucial thing is that equal heat were to go into both, why not
say so clearly in the first place ?
And anyway... Under what circumstances to you think the sun will
actually deliver equal heat to the ocean and atmosphere ? If there
isn't one, why are you wasting our time on this scenario ?
>> >> >The same heat would warm up the air tens of degrees
>> >> >for every degree the ocean would warm.
>> >>
>> >> But
>> >>
>> >> a) that's not what you said,
>> >>
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> b) the "same heat" isn't applied to air and the ocean is it ?
>> >
>> >Actually it largely is. The sun warms up the earth, water, and air at
>> >the same time.
>>
>> Well - it's certainly true the sun heats the air and ocean from the
>> top, also that the earth heats both from below. Trouble is though that
>> insolation doesn't give rise to uniform temperature distributions, and
>> heat flows from hot to cooler bodies.
>>
>So you bring up something outside the topic as proof?
No - I bring up something relevant to illustrate why they point you are
trying to make is moot, however long you spend trying to say it
correctly, and find a point to make with it.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
dinman
kicker
tho is is the area of Hot Temp. is larger than the area of Cold Temp
and a seperation area is at a much higher altitiude this makes the
Temp. at that altitude more violent and creates more STRONGER WIND
that push the hot and cold mixter into serious
Storms,Tarnados,Hurricanes, ground lighting to the high cold area a
longer strike , it would not supprize me with in a year or to to be
able to see a lighting strike last 3-5 min. on one discharge.
Dinman
dinman
nich...@mailandnews.com
John Beardmore wrote:
> Really ? Once upon a time I did a chemistry degree and you're making my
> toe itch... As I recall, most gas solubilities decline with
> temperature, and see
>
> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03416.htm !
>
>
While this may be correct it would be a bit of a leap to apply it to
seawater which is not the same as distilled water used in a lab.
See http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
The processes of chemical sequestration and of biological sequestration
vary inversely as the temperature increases - approximately cancelling
out. Of course all depends on the state of the oceanic ecosystem -
something which IMHO is disastrously understudied.
---
Nic
Lurker
> > "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > > Global warming would make the earth wetter not dryer. Yes the
desserts
> > > will be hotter and dryier, but the rest of the planet will be wetter.
> >
> > Apparently it's very difficult for some to realize that hot areas will
> > become hotter and thefore become dryer,
Therefore? Tell that to the people living in Amazonian rain
forests. That place is sure hot. But dry?
> while more temporate regions will
> > experience a little more water - although not a lot.
> >
> > Personally I don't understand the origin of their aledged confusion
unless
> > it's all just another form of self delusion.
Well, all that water from the melting glaciers has to go somewhere, right?
Is it precipitating as rain or snow or dew? Does it just hang in the air
as extra moisture [where does it go then?] Does it take part in some
chemical reactions to remove it from the air? Or vegetation perhaps?
Coby Beck
news:7jj1g.13955$JZ1.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> Well, all that water from the melting glaciers has to go somewhere, right?
> Is it precipitating as rain or snow or dew? Does it just hang in the air
> as extra moisture [where does it go then?] Does it take part in some
> chemical reactions to remove it from the air? Or vegetation perhaps?
It ends up in the oceans. Water is so abundant around the globe that the
atmosphere is by and large holding as much vapor as its temperature will
allow. Gacial melt just flows to the sea or evaporates then rains out then
flows to the sea or goes into the soil then into plants then into the air
then rains out then flows to the sea or ........ and then flows to the sea.