Ocean News

The use of logic bereft of empirical guidance is about as useful as navel gazing.

If you are having trouble understanding weather, climate, and time, I suggest you consult an encyclopedia. While the Wikipedia is hardly definitive, it is readily available. For starters I suggest you read each of the following articles. Next, I suggest you read all of the links found in each article. Maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion.

WEATHER

CLIMATE

TIME

 

While we are waiting on i ,some statements about human contributed CO2 can be subjected to True and False testing.
First, do we need to include a companion statement, as in, CO2 does this when X does that, T or F?
Might require the sun for CO2 to have any affect on climate. Sun is so obvious, do we need to do T or F about it?
Following are all statements, labeled S1 thru Sx, however many we come up with.
S1: Greenhouse gasses trap solar radiation and CO2 is one. T
S2: CO2 is the predominant greenhouse gas. F
S3: CO2 is a major greenhouse gas. F
S4: CO2 traps all or most of the sun's radiation. F
S5: Other greenhouse gases trap the same frequency of radiation as CO2 T
pause

Imaginary number just declined my offer to stipulate to his provided definitions, and refuses to offer any definitions.

I broaden the offer to any AGW believer. Provide the definitions for Climate, Weather, and Time. As brief and concise definitions as possible. They will become encapsulated as logic statements.

Since i was so adamant my logic was faulty, I assumed his complaint was, it wasn't presented in a classic style. Thought he knew logic. Apparently not, he was just blindly lashing out, because he hated the conclusion.

 

Who are you to make the rules. Unless I spout your talking points, I am allowed no respect?
Besides being an expert memorizer of your holy talking points, have you reasoned anything out?
I have, and AGW fails reasoning!
Intelligent conversation? Are you suggesting I'm deficient? Lol.
Do you perchance, play chess?
There are online chess challenge opportunities.

I know the definitions of climate and weather and time. How could I be successful in a half century career at sea, if I didn't.
I was looking for SOME point of agreement. Offered you the definitions, I would stipulate to.
Instead, you deny logic has any function. Not surprised. Psuedo-science,. Pathological science, is your ONLY yardsticks. Real science isn't allowed!, Scientific method, is outshouted by the faithful's consensus votes!

 

Equally important is for there to be agreement on the sources of empirical information. Given that I already don't agree with all the T/F answers you've given for S1...S5 I rather suspect your little game would produce more heat than light. Therefore, I respectfully decline your offer, and will continue offering my preferred posts of (maybe real and maybe not) OCEAN NEWS.

 

Would you know empirical if it bit you?

Definition of empirical
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws

Absolutely nothing of AGW is empirical! it's entirely speculation!

And you can't refute any of those five T or F statements regarding CO2

I hadn't even got tio the puny percentage humans contribute. yet!

 

You're not being respectful of the hundreds of thousands of climate scientists who would beg to differ. Not even Watts Up With That would agree with you. That's why it's a total waste of time discussing AGW with you.

 

sez you.

Uh, excuse me doctor i, your Phd is in what field?

Or are you an ordained minister in AGW? Is it Rev. i

You pontificate with such authority!

As to the hundreds, thousands of scientists doing empirical research.
They study many topics not related to the validity of AGW. They pay lip service, "Oh yes! AGW is Real!" but their research doesn't support AGW theory. has nothing to do with AGW theory!

The theory was a fraud from the beginning and so is the IPCC. So is the consensus. i posted the fraudulent origins of all three! For your own blinkered eyes.

 

Empirical Evidence: Oceans Make Climate https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/empirical-evidence-oceans-make-climate/

And a word from Dr. William Gray:

“Changes in the ocean’s deep circulation currents appears to be, by far, the best physical explanation for the observed global surface temperature changes (see Gray 2009, 2011, 2012, 2012). It seems ridiculous to me for both the AGW advocates and us skeptics to so closely monitor current weather and short-time climate change as indication of CO2’s influence on our climate. This assumes that the much more dominant natural climate changes that have always occurred are no longer in operation or have relevance.”

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141208/ncomms6752/full/ncomms6752.html
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a key component of the global climate system, responsible for a large fraction of the 1.3 PW northward heat transport in the Atlantic basin. Numerical modelling experiments suggest that without a vigorous AMOC, surface air temperature in the North Atlantic region would cool by around 1–3 °C, with enhanced local cooling of up to 8 °C in regions with large sea-ice changes. Substantial weakening of the AMOC would also cause a southward shift of the inter-tropical convergence zone, encouraging Sahelian drought, and dynamic changes in sea level of up to 80 cm along the coasts of North America and Europe.

And an observation from Dr. Robert E. Stevenson:

“The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.”

Some empirical data for you. Do you want sliced bananas and a sprinkle of sugar on top, to make it mor palatable for you?

 

After the Mod knocked us down for out of limits debating I'm just ready to clean up the mess it caused in the galley, and also found that sea level rise is caused by good weather . .

 

LOL. Good evening there isn't it?
imagine the ocean having a crack problem!

 

It's a Nags Head NC cartoon: 2010 On the Beach, South Nags Head, NC — Picture

 

Thanks for bringing this up, Yob.

It's long been recognized that the AMOC has slowed down, and that a major slowdown will cause the North Atlantic regions to become much colder.

What is causing the slowdown of the AMOC. One possibility is:

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation

This would argue for enhancing our efforts to slow down Global Warming.

Glad to see that Yob is finally coming to his senses.

See also AMOC Stability

 

it's the OCEAN causing the warming!
Glad to see you CAN be rational when you put your MIND to it.
Emotional stress, such as PANIC, slows or numbs mental processes. That's why everybody normally cautions "Don't Panic!" Except alarmists!

 

Why the Mediterranean is a climate change hotspot

The different global circulation models of the Earth’s changing climate agree that temperatures virtually everywhere will increase, and in most places so will rainfall, in part because warmer air can carry more water vapor. There is one major exception, and that is the Mediterranean area, with estimates ranging for a reduction of winter rains of 10 percent to 60 percent. But nobody had previously been able to explain why.

Tuel and Eltahir found that this projected drying of the Mediterranean region is a result of the confluence of two different effects of a warming climate: a change in the dynamics of upper atmosphere circulation and a reduction in the temperature difference between land and sea. Neither factor by itself would be sufficient to account for the anomalous reduction in rainfall, but in combination the two phenomena can fully account for the unique drying trend seen in the models.

The study was published in the Journal of Climate

 

All these reports are good, but don't support the busted AGW theory. Nothing physically observable supports human CO2 causes climate change.The effects these types of articles predict or report, are independent of the causes of climate change. Oceans and seas, like the Mediterranean, cause climate and changes in climate. And that is an observable process!