It's still getting hotter

[Crick]

What occurred to end the little ice age?

Warming, Dufus.

Warming that began around 1850, long before the industrial age.

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe the Little Ice Age was an ice age?

 

[Weatherman2020]

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe the Little Ice Age was an ice age?

What brought the Little Ice age to and end around the mid 1800’s?

WARMING

 

[Crick]

What brought the Little Ice age to and end around the mid 1800’s?

WARMING

Okay.

1) The end of the Little Ice Age, which actually took place in three, regional phases, approximately coincided with the Industrial Revolution and the mass combustion of fossil fuels.
2) The beginning of the rise of GHGs, however, did not end the LIA.
3) The LIA's cause is uncertain but the factors most frequently mentioned include changes in solar output, changes in atmospheric movement and ocean currents.

 

[Robert W]

You have to have looked them up by now. That you still don't bring the proper terms into the discussion tells me that you probably don't understand one or both concepts. And they're NOT that complicated. At all.

You amaze me. It feels as if one tries to discuss elephants with you but all you want to discuss are birds.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Okay.

1) The end of the Little Ice Age, which actually took place in three, regional phases, approximately coincided with the Industrial Revolution and the mass combustion of fossil fuels.
2) The beginning of the rise of GHGs, however, did not end the LIA.
3) The LIA's cause is uncertain but the factors most frequently mentioned include changes in solar output, changes in atmospheric movement and ocean currents.

Industrial Revolution changed the earths climate immediately !

Why do you hate science?

 

[Crick]

You amaze me. It feels as if one tries to discuss elephants with you but all you want to discuss are birds.

Robert, the difference between heat content and specific heat capacity is a critical point in the conversation I was pursuing with ding. That he didn't appear to know the difference and seemed unwilling to even look it up was a bit of a show stopper. And, for that and several other reasons, I've simply stopped talking to him. It was a complete waste of time.

 

[ding]

Robert, the difference between heat content and specific heat capacity is a critical point in the conversation I was pursuing with ding. That he didn't appear to know the difference and seemed unwilling to even look it up was a bit of a show stopper. And, for that and several other reasons, I've simply stopped talking to him. It was a complete waste of time.

Says the guy who refused to provide his estimate of the heat contained in the atmosphere and the ocean because he knew it supported the fact that the ocean contains 1000 times the heat of the atmosphere BECAUSE IT CAN ABSORB 1000 TIMES THE HEAT OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

It is idiotic to believe the atmosphere is causing the ocean to warm instead of the sun is causing the ocean to warm. Idiotic.

 

[ding]

The climate community and all if it's minions are fraudulent.

 

[ding]

I get that's it's hard for some to understand that the sun is constantly heating the ocean even when the planet is in a glacial period. But the fact remains that the sun is heating the ocean, the atmosphere is not heating the ocean.

 

[ding]

So if the sun is constantly heating the ocean how can the mean ocean temperature cool?

And the answer is extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

 

[ding]

Why can the ocean absorb 1000 times the heat of the atmosphere? Because water is an excellent conductor of heat, air is a poor conductor of heat and the ocean has 300 times the mass of the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

Absent extensive northern hemisphere glaciation the planet will naturally warm.

 

[Crick]

Says the guy who refused to provide his estimate of the heat contained in the atmosphere and the ocean because he knew it supported the fact that the ocean contains 1000 times the heat of the atmosphere BECAUSE IT CAN ABSORB 1000 TIMES THE HEAT OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

It is idiotic to believe the atmosphere is causing the ocean to warm instead of the sun is causing the ocean to warm. Idiotic.

View attachment 988113

Not only have I never contended the fact that the specific heat capacity of water is higher than that of air - about 4 times (4.186 v 1.005) on a mass basis - I have brought it up myself in many posts long before you ever arrived at this forum. That does NOT prevent water from exchanging thermal energy from air and vice versa. It is a reasonable conclusions that prior to the Industrial Revolution, the Earth was in thermal equilibrium, both between the Earth and space and between the various components of the Earth system. That is, there was a rough equilibrium between the atmosphere as a whole and the oceans as a whole. So, when CO2 began to be added to the atmosphere, it began a net thermal transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean. THAT is what caused the dramatic rise in the ocean's thermal content in the last 60 years.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not only have I never contended the fact that the specific heat capacity of water is higher than that of air - about 4 times (4.186 v 1.005) on a mass basis - I have brought it up myself in many posts long before you ever arrived at this forum. That does NOT prevent water from exchanging thermal energy from air and vice versa. It is a reasonable conclusions that prior to the Industrial Revolution, the Earth was in thermal equilibrium, both between the Earth and space and between the various components of the Earth system. That is, there was a rough equilibrium between the atmosphere as a whole and the oceans as a whole. So, when CO2 began to be added to the atmosphere, it began a net thermal transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean. THAT is what caused the dramatic rise in the ocean's thermal content in the last 60 years.

Oh look, the ancient port of Caesarea built over 2,000 years ago! Where those people are standing is the dock the boats would come to? It’s a grassy field now caused by the rising ocean!!!!

Oh look, the Port of Pharos mentioned by Homer over 2,800 years ago!

 

[ding]

Not only have I never contended the fact that the specific heat capacity of water is higher than that of air - about 4 times (4.186 v 1.005) on a mass basis - I have brought it up myself in many posts long before you ever arrived at this forum. That does NOT prevent water from exchanging thermal energy from air and vice versa. It is a reasonable conclusions that prior to the Industrial Revolution, the Earth was in thermal equilibrium, both between the Earth and space and between the various components of the Earth system. That is, there was a rough equilibrium between the atmosphere as a whole and the oceans as a whole. So, when CO2 began to be added to the atmosphere, it began a net thermal transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean. THAT is what caused the dramatic rise in the ocean's thermal content in the last 60 years.

It's unreasonable to believe the heat in the ocean doesn't predominantly come from the sun directly heating the ocean and not the atmosphere which is 1/300th the mass of the ocean and has only changed slightly over time. What heat exchange that does occurs between the ocean and the atmosphere is the ocean heating the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn't heat the ocean. The atmosphere only has 1/1000th the heat of the ocean.

 

[Crick]

It's unreasonable to believe the heat in the ocean doesn't predominantly come from the sun directly heating the ocean and not the atmosphere which is 1/300th the mass of the ocean and has only changed slightly over time.

All the thermal energy on this planet comes from a) the sun b) primordial heat from the formation of the planet c) fissile materials undergoing radiological breakdown.

What heat exchange that does occurs between the ocean and the atmosphere is the ocean heating the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn't heat the ocean. The atmosphere only has 1/1000th the heat of the ocean.

That the direction of net energy flux always moves from higher temperature to lower temperature is completely independent of the total mass, density or specific heat capacity of the materials in question. If the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean underneath it, heat will flow from the atmosphere to the ocean. Period. The additional IR backscatter of greenhouse warming is absorbed very quickly at the ocean's surface. It is NOT immediately lost to evaporation as deniers have claimed but in all cases slows the upward energy flux from the ocean's mixed layer.

 

[ding]

All the thermal energy on this planet comes from a) the sun b) primordial heat from the formation of the planet c) fissile materials undergoing radiological breakdown.

That the direction of net energy flux always moves from higher temperature to lower temperature is completely independent of the total mass, density or specific heat capacity of the materials in question. If the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean underneath it, heat will flow from the atmosphere to the ocean. Period. The additional IR backscatter of greenhouse warming is absorbed very quickly at the ocean's surface. It is NOT immediately lost to evaporation as deniers have claimed but in all cases slows the upward energy flux from the ocean's mixed layer.

Not getting your point. You seem to want to give the atmosphere more credit than it deserves. The sun is heating the ocean, not the atmosphere.

Do you suppose heat transfer is unrelated to the mass of the objects transferring and receiving is heat?

 

[Crick]

Not getting your point. You seem to want to give the atmosphere more credit than it deserves. The sun is heating the ocean, not the atmosphere.

Do you suppose heat transfer is unrelated to the mass of the objects transferring and receiving is heat?

Please try to read a little more closely.

The DIRECTION of net thermal transfer between two masses is dependent only on their temperatures and is COMPLETELY independent of the mass, density or specific heat capacity of the two materials. Do you understand what I am saying? You act as if it is physically impossible for heat to move from the air to the water. That is FALSE. The DIRECTION of net transfer is dependent ONLY on their respective temperatures.

 

[ding]

Please try to read a little more closely.

The DIRECTION of net thermal transfer between two masses is dependent only on their temperatures and is COMPLETELY independent of the mass, density or specific heat capacity of the two materials. Do you understand what I am saying? You act as if it is physically impossible for heat to move from the air to the water. That is FALSE. The DIRECTION of net transfer is dependent ONLY on their respective temperatures.

The ability to transfer a material quantity of heat - as you are suggesting - is related to the mass of the two objects and the temperature difference of the two objects. It's a simple material balance. If you placed a golf ball at 100F in a barrel of water at 60F it wouldn't materially affect the temperature of the water.

 

[Robert W]

The ability to transfer a material quantity of heat - as you are suggesting - is related to the mass of the two objects and the temperature difference of the two objects. It's a simple material balance. If you placed a golf ball at 100F in a barrel of water at 60F it wouldn't materially affect the temperature of the water.

The way I evaluate Crick is he wants to live in fear. And buys the fear that has been sold to him.