The entire ocean contains 1000 time more heat than the entire atmosphere. Why is this so confusing for you?
Seems awful cold for the "hottest" year on record
- Thread starter westwall
- Start date
Do these facts bother you?
- The ocean stores the majority of heat from the sun
- The ocean holds 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere
- The ocean distributes that heat to the rest of the globe
- Without ocean currents the polar regions would be colder and the equator would be hotter such that much of the planet would be inhospitable for life
- Ocean currents are affected by density (salinity and thermal expansion) and wind.
- Wind patterns are affected by the sun
- If heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic were disrupted it would lead to catastrophic cooling
I think its a bit funny that you act as if the Atlantic were the only ocean. But, NONE of these items involving warming or cooling the planet as a whole. That has been true of all your claims. You cannot seem to divorce yourself from the idea that if your hometown gets cold, the rest of the planet must have gotten cold.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 33,589
- 26,305
- 2,905
It's no different than modern-day polling. Despite all of the high-end mathematics and special techniques they use to process the data the results are no better than the data collected.
Today I have yet to see a valid data collection system that avoids all of the weaknesses inherent in the process. Somebody pays for the process and the people who pay for the process are not interested in results that don't benefit them.
Before we start, have you ever had a class in statistics?
In statistics?
What do you mean when say "no better than the data collected"? To what qualities of the data are you referring and how have you determined the actual values of those data.
To what sort of "data collection systems" do you refer? What weaknesses do you believe are inherent in data collection that such systems fail to avoid?
None of that precludes accurate and objective data collection and/or processing.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 33,589
- 26,305
- 2,905
I'm referring to all data. The end result of any data collection is only as good as the data collected. This is especially true with statistics. Don't get me wrong, statistics is a wonderful branch of math. However it risks being the biggest bullshit branch of math also due to the lack of consistency in the information collection.
None of the mathematical process is worth a damn if it's processing bullshit.
Population sampling - selecting an accurately representative sample of a larger population - is a well explored and, among statisticians, well known field. It is relatively simple to obtain accurate and unbiased samples. That does not mean its always done but, when its not, it's most likely to either be intentional or via incompetence. It is not the overwhelming problem you make it out to be.
Go to fivethirtyeight.com. You will see there that they rate the accuracy of other surveys and polls that they use and that the accuracy and objectivity of those surveyors sampling is the major factor in those ratings.
Last edited:
But I don't, Changes in circulation patterns allows salinity and temperature difference between oceans to equilibrate.
No, they do not. And that has nothing to do with the planet as a whole getting warmer or colder - you have yet to even attempt to address your largest failing.But I don't, Changes in circulation patterns allows salinity and temperature difference between oceans to equilibrate.
Another Ding mistake.
The ocean plays a huge part in distributing heat. This distribution of heat is what determines the different climates around different parts of the planet. Change the currents and those climates will change. Of particular interest is the Arctic region which is poised for extensive continental glaciation. Disrupting heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic will trigger extensive NH continental glaciation which will have world wide impacts.
Again, moving heat from one region to another does not cause the planet as a whole to heat or cool.
So what? Did those currents change sometime between 1750 and today? No. So, what is causing the warming?
It's going to have to overcome some extreme warming first. The ice at the poles has been melting like gangbusters, not growing.
It does if the region is close to the temperature threshold for glaciation and its landmass configuration is such that extensive continental glaciation can spread. There have been over 30 such events in the last 3 million years and each and every one of them happened because the Arctic glaciated and those glaciers spread to the surrounding continents of NA, Europe and Asia.
otto105
Diamond Member
- Sep 11, 2017
- 46,631
- 15,606
- 2,165
I understand subject matter experts.
I can understand the news of the day regarding climate. I can see the rapid changes.
You however, for political reason stick your head up your ass. We can all see that.
The previous interglacial periods were 2C hotter than today, so no. In fact, it's going to take more warming to trigger the change in ocean currents.
The last interglacial melted all ice from the Arctic and the planet still entered a glacial period. Seas were 26ft higher than today.
From the HCO, 6,000 years ago, to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the Earth cooled. If not for human intervention, it was certainly never going to warm another 2C.
Another Ding mistake.
What do you think a 26 foot rise in sea level would do to the human race?
Incorrect. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends like that. It's an artifact of the landmass distribution and resulting ocean currents which circulate heat. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated planet which is uniquely configured for colder temperatures because of the different ways the polar regions are thermally isolated from warm marine currents.
otto105
Diamond Member
- Sep 11, 2017
- 46,631
- 15,606
- 2,165
Hilarious dinger
Can you find in that fossil record the last time human caused CO2 rose to 442 ppm and inform us of the effects on climate.
How many of these is it going to take before you admit that temperatures have been falling for 6,000 years, that the Earth reached it interglacial peak with the Holocene Climate Optimum?
What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?
Natural variability can explain much of Earth's average temperature variation since the end of the last ice age, but over the past century, global average temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels in the past 11,300 years.
Global temperatures over last 24,000 years show today's warming 'unprecedented'
A University of Arizona-led effort to reconstruct Earth's climate since the last ice age, about 24,000 years ago, highlights the main drivers of climate change and how far out of bounds human activity has pushed the climate system.
Climate Facts
ccdatacenter.org
Global Temperature Change — the Big Picture
There’s a new reconstruction of past temperature covering the last 11,300 years by Marcott et al. (2013, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science…
tamino.wordpress.com
Another Ding mistake.
Why? That would only cause a 0.22C to 0.5C increase. That's meaningless.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Some of the 30,000 98's surrendered by Germany in Norway after the surrender.
- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 3
-
