Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes, explain to us why a rock or peice of steel can be warmed, but water cannot.

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!

Old Fraud and the pooh flinging monkey don't understand their question, so they don't know the answer. Now they are hoping Westy doesn't either.

Its not that difficult to figure out just by thinking. Which leaves Old Rocks out. And the pooh flinging monkey only uses his brain to think up insults and ad Homs.

 

[IanC]

I was thinking about a longwinded explanation with specific heats, highly ordered solar vs diffuse IR, etc but that wouldn't get people to think for themselves.

Instead, just think about why we sweat.

 

[Crick]

Oh...........ps......the 97% consensus is a myth!! A huge, huge majority of scientists call BS on the alarmist view of climate change pushed by the bozo's in this forum >>

Cooking Climate Consensus Data 97 of Scientists Affirm AGW Debunked

These scientists value the age old tradition of the scientific method which AGW scientists don't care about.

of all those 97% polls, Cook's has to be the worst. it has been hit a lot more and a lot harder since that 2013 piece as well. the Lewandowsky, Nutteracelli and Cook pieces on 'deniers' have taken fatal blows as well. it takes too long to explain how anti-science those guys are but Australia must be ashamed.

Care to show us the polls that refute Cook, Nuccitelli et al? Care to explain why if their poll was done so poorly why its results match everyone else's. Care to explain why if AGW is broadly rejected by climate scientists, all these polls find such high acceptance?

Ian, would you care to take this opportunity to correct people whose response to a 97% acceptance poll is to say that science is not settled by a consensus; that it's not a democracy. To be honest, though, I don't know why you brought the polls u here. That was a bit out of the blue.

Would you care to tell Crusader Frank and jc456 whether or not the Vostok ice cores prove that CO2 cannot cause the world to heat?

Would you care to tell me what the question was you wanted me to answer so badly?

 

[IanC]

Oh...........ps......the 97% consensus is a myth!! A huge, huge majority of scientists call BS on the alarmist view of climate change pushed by the bozo's in this forum >>

Cooking Climate Consensus Data 97 of Scientists Affirm AGW Debunked

These scientists value the age old tradition of the scientific method which AGW scientists don't care about.

of all those 97% polls, Cook's has to be the worst. it has been hit a lot more and a lot harder since that 2013 piece as well. the Lewandowsky, Nutteracelli and Cook pieces on 'deniers' have taken fatal blows as well. it takes too long to explain how anti-science those guys are but Australia must be ashamed.

Care to show us the polls that refute Cook, Nuccitelli et al? Care to explain why if their poll was done so poorly why its results match everyone else's. Care to explain why if AGW is broadly rejected by climate scientists, all these polls find such high acceptance?

Ian, would you care to take this opportunity to correct people whose response to a 97% acceptance poll is to say that science is not settled by a consensus; that it's not a democracy. To be honest, though, I don't know why you brought the polls u here. That was a bit out of the blue.

Would you care to tell Crusader Frank and jc456 whether or not the Vostok ice cores prove that CO2 cannot cause the world to heat?

Would you care to tell me what the question was you wanted me to answer so badly?

as you could easily tell by reading the comment and the embedded quote, I was conversing with Skooks.

this whole 97% poll thing reminds me of Lewontin's Fallacy. he said there could be no human races because we all shared so many of the same genes. Skeptics and Warmers share the same general ideas for low level binary questions like, 'is the globe warmer?', 'has CO2 increased?', 'has mankind made an impact on nature?'. both side are next to 100% in agreement on those although the warmers make strawman arguments that skeptics deny them all.

disagreements over magnitudes happen for those same questions, but we are all still on the same page, with more variation.

then come all the predictions, and conclusions of doom. this is where each side starts calling the other side "anti-science". and assumes that the other has bad intentions or is taking graft.

 

[Old Rocks]

While there are some prediction of doom concerning the methane clatherates, for myself, and most scientists dealing with the problem, the predictions have been for major disruptions occurring over decades from sea level rise and crop losses. By throwing out strawmen, as you and the other denialists have been doing, you are engaging in exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco companies. Which is to be expected. After all, both the energy companies and the tobacco companies used the same con men to attack those showing what the effects of their products were.

 

[IanC]

Come on, Walleyes, explain to us why a rock or peice of steel can be warmed, but water cannot.

IR can warm a rock's surface which can then only expel energy by radiation and conduction. because are is a good insulator the heat moves into the rock. likewise SW (solar) also warms the rock's surface and conduction warms the interior.

oceans are different. SW penetrates into the interior and directly warms the interior. the surface loses energy by radiation and conduction but it also loses energy by evaporation! the ocean skin is always cooler than the underlying water therefore the direction of heat flow is always towards the atmosphere. IR can only penetrate the skin where it is used up as latent energy of evaporation.

this does not mean that IR has no effect on ocean temperature. although IR does not directly warm the underlying water, it does affect the equilibrium of how much energy moves up from depth, which is warmed by solar energy. temperature is always a product of energy in minus energy out.

 

[Crick]

The surface of the ocean is not always cooler than the water below it and if you'll think of any XBT trace you've ever seen, shallow ocean water is almost invariably warmer than the water at depth.

However, I wish to make clear here that you are saying that Westwall and his two minions are wrong. Good enough.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The AGW Cultists (Faithers) accept the orthodoxy of what they are instructed to believe and then they pretend it is "science."

As for anyone who challenges that orthodoxy, they deem em to be 'thblasphemers' and they attempt to label them as "deniers."

AGW Cultists: THE WORLD IS FLAT! It is consensus! Science be praised!

Us Blasphemers: Uhm. No. There is actual data (good data and solid science) supporting the proposition that the world is actually a sphere!

AGW Cultists: (In a chorus of voices heavy with mocking derision): DENIERS!

Us: Yeah. We ARE actually denying your contention.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who is 'us'? And what contention are you denying? That there are GHGs? That GHGs are capable of warming the atmosphere? That the increase in the atmosphere of the amount of GHGs is anthropogenic? Or are you merely once again putting your ignorance on display for giggles.

 

[IanC]

The surface of the ocean is not always cooler than the water below it and if you'll think of any XBT trace you've ever seen, shallow ocean water is almost invariably warmer than the water at depth.

However, I wish to make clear here that you are saying that Westwall and his two minions are wrong. Good enough.

I would like to point out this typical crick post. He implies that he has corrected some mistake, but all he is is confused. I really wish he would quote my actual words but he finds it easier to imagine my position or misremember what I said.

I said the skin of the ocean, where evaporation takes place, is always cooler than the water beneath it. Why? Because the H2O molecules that acquire enough speed to break through the skin and become water vapour leave behind a cohort of molecules that must, by definition be cooler. Temperature is the average kinetic speed, so if you keep taking away the fastest....

But crick would rather change the subject. Ocean water has variable temperature at different depths as measured by XBT or ARGO. WTF!?!?!

Evaporation happens in the top micron of water. IR reaches a micron into the ocean. Why does crick think the depths measured by XBTs has anything germaine to the discussion?

 

[IanC]

The surface of the ocean is not always cooler than the water below it and if you'll think of any XBT trace you've ever seen, shallow ocean water is almost invariably warmer than the water at depth.

However, I wish to make clear here that you are saying that Westwall and his two minions are wrong. Good enough.

What I said proved that IR doesn't directly heat the ocean. Isn't that what Westy has been saying?

Quote westwall's actual words, in context, not your straw man version of them.

 

[mamooth]

IR can only penetrate the skin where it is used up as latent energy of evaporation

And you've given us zero evidence to back that up. That's because there's no evidence to support such a crazy claim. It's just totally wrong.

According to Ian here, the ocean's skin is always boiling away. That's absurd. People do measure this stuff, and they do the calculations. The skin of the ocean is not constantly boiling away.

Let's look at the reality. Ian got it half-right, before he started babbling all the cult pseudoscience.

Visible light penetrates into the ocean and warms it. The warm water becomes less dense and rises, so temperatures go up as you get closer to the surface.

Air temperatures are usually cooler than the ocean beneath, so at the skin layer, heat is lost to the atmosphere by radiation, conduction and evaporation. Thus, the temperature dips down again at the skin layer.

This diagram shows a typical temperature profile in the daytime. Note the sort of log scale for depth.

The change of heat retained in the ocean depends on the balance between heat in and heat out. Heat in is all the radiation coming in. Heat out is what flows back out through the skin.

How fast does the heat go back out? That's driven by the delta-T slope in the skin. The backradiation warms the skin and makes that slope less. So, less heat out. The backradiation doesn't have to warm the deeper layers to warm the ocean. It warms the ocean by decreasing the heat flow out from the deeper layers. Less heat out, more heat retained, oceans warm.

And the pooh flinging monkey only uses his brain to think up insults and ad Homs.

Hypocrisy meter, pegged high.

 

[IanC]

Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.

Solar heats the ocean, IR energy is used up at the boundary, equilibrium is changed .

Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer. Lexicon is what confuses people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.

Solar heats the ocean, IR energy is used up at the boundary, equilibrium is changed .

Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer. Lexicon is what confuses people.

"Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer."

What?????????

 

[IanC]

Hahaha. I don't take back what I said in your edit. A 3SD excursion from your usual behavior doesn't change the average (much).

 

[IanC]

Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.

Solar heats the ocean, IR energy is used up at the boundary, equilibrium is changed .

Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer. Lexicon is what confuses people.

"Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer."

What?????????

Affect the equilibrium, affect the temperature. If solar wasn't already heating the oceans IR wouldn't have the same effect. IR is not 'directly' heating the ocean, except arguably in the first micron, but it certainly does change the equilibrium. As I have said countless times before.

 

[Crick]

By what mechanism do you believe conduction between that first micron and the water below is prevented from taking place?

 

[jc456]

I'm sorry jc, but you're just not up to it.

I'm above it, I have graduated and know the fake data is fake. I call bullshit, I don't accept it and until you present data that is RAW data, it's still bullshit. comprehenda?

 

[jc456]

Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim. Computer models ARE NOT DATA!

The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!

Funny how you deliberately ignore all the direct evidence, and then try to pass off a lie that models are the only evidence.

That's the #2 reason why the denier cult is held in such contempt by the world, its chronic dishonesty.

The #1 reason deniers are scorned, of course, is that the denier cult's science stinks so badly. As in they don't have any science. At this stage, all they have is conspiracy theories.

what evidence tooth? tell us we're waiting.

Adn let me add, you say this daily and yet, nothing, nada, zip. When you gonna post up that there evidence you claim you have? As Ted Knight said in Caddy Shack.... "we're waiting"!!!!!!!!