That will be the Global warming causing that

[Jantar]

So where was this from.

Skyryder.

It was shown on TV1 News during the last heatwave that hit England. I believe the same item was on many other news channels as well.

[Skyryder]

Many also point to melting glaciers etc as evidence of man's effect on the climate while ignoring that those same glaciers have been in retreat since the end of the last mini ice age and not just over the past 40 years. they also ignore the effect of the PDO which switched in 1998. This is like the tide direction at the beach swithing from an incoming tide to an outgoing one. Its therefore no wonder that the decade around the switch will contain the years of highest overall temperature, just as the decade from 1965 - 1975 contained the lowest of the last half century.

It's the speed of the retreat and melt that is different.

**

Gwigs post was a denial that global warming/climate change is occurring. I suspect and mentioned that this may be due to opposition to carbon credits. It seems to me that now some deniers not only dispute the cause of global warming but that it is occurring at all. My focus now on the subject is not the cause, as there will never be a consensus on this either here or in the scientific community, but on the global effects that global warming will cause.
You may be interested in this
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ssa011609.php

(I had a graph on this but seem to have lost it. I’ll do a search and see if I can find it. The link covers some detail but the key is the answer to two questions
1 have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels,
2 has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

I do not believe that the prevalence of global catastrophe forecasts and surge of climate denial is a coincidence. I’m not suggesting any kind of conspiracy here. I believe that the groundswell of climate denial has stemmed from the grass roots opposition too carbon credits ‘tax’ How far this has been pursued by the science community to global warming is conjecture on my part, but I do see a developing trend here.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

It was shown on TV1 News during the last heatwave that hit England. I believe the same item was on many other news channels as well.

OK but who said that this teperture was evidence of global warming. A Journo from the news channel or a spokesman on climate change?

I'll do a youtube search but if it's not there and I can not find?????????????????


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

the sky is falling Henny Penny..........

No. Methane is rising.

Skyryder

[gwigs]

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say .







http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-CC5C23C24651

[riffer]

DIY ocean heating

by Mark Imisides

December 7, 2009

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by greenhouse warming of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by greenhouse heating of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of greenhouse heating of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist working in the private sector.

[Jantar]

OK but who said that this teperture was evidence of global warming. A Journo from the news channel or a spokesman on climate change?

The comment was by a journo. But then, most people get their data from the journos. There are not many, like you and me, who try to go to the source.

[Skyryder]

The comment was by a journo. But then, most people get their data from the journos. There are not many, like you and me, who try to go to the source.

Yea I sometimes think you and I are in the same paddock but someone put a fence in the middle.

[peasea]

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

Don't tell the tax man that and the truth is the last thing the public needs.

[scissorhands]

Using less/no oil is still a good thing either way.

[peasea]

Using less/no oil is still a good thing either way.

Imagine a world where you didnt really have to go anywhere from home

I couldn't think of anything more boring.

[Squiggles]

DIY ocean heating

Interesting, written only to try and disprove tho.
I wonder if we'd notice the tiny tiny tiny change in water temperature needed to have a grand effect on air temp (and thus currents) close to the surface...

[riffer]

Interesting, written only to try and disprove tho.
I wonder if we'd notice the tiny tiny tiny change in water temperature needed to have a grand effect on air close to the surface...

Well it would appear we may be now. However the CO2 has nothing to do with climate change...

[Jantar]

Interesting, written only to try and disprove tho.

Which is what the scientific method is all about.

I wonder if we'd notice the tiny tiny tiny change in water temperature needed to have a grand effect on air temp (and thus currents) close to the surface...

Yes we do. How else do you think meteorologists make their forecasts for air temperatures? They look at the direction of the airflow that is approaching land and integrate the fetch of that airflow by the sea surface temperature that it flows across. The air temperature is a very close reflection of the SST.

[Skyryder]

Riffer. The problem that Imisides fails to mention is that of salinity. It's what happens when snow melt and large volumes of water from the ice shelf comes into contact with salted sea water. Ask him about the methane riseing and it's future effects on the atmosphere. Being an industrial chemist he should know the effects of mist and oxygen with methan and a lightining strike in the midst of this mixture. I'll see if you tube has something on this. Nope the clip I'm looking for has been removed so I'll just have to improvise witj apologies to Private Baldrick

Boom boom boom.................boom boom boom..................Boom boom boom............boom boom boom!!

Skyryder