Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5526-5550 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 1:55:34 AM PDT
A customer says:
JB Frodsham. - "So my questions is this: Does the atmosphere heat or cool the ocean or the other way around? "

Right now, the atmosphere is heating the ocean. To a depth of a couple of hundred metres, in fact. That can reverse later on, and does so transiently during the ENSO cycle.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 1:56:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 2:32:40 AM PDT
JB Frodsham. says:
A Reader from "Frisco Beach" says:"Currently, like other governments, the US subsidizes the fossil fuel industry."

JF: I do not agree with any subsidies, remove the lot from everything that way it make the cost to the consumer transparent. "In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress." So what is the dollar value really? Between 10 and 52 billion. Hmm

FB."Anyway, what i've said all along is that if the US does more, we'll have much better standing to go to the Chinese - they real source of the danger at present."

JF: Yes in more ways than one.

FB:"Actually i agree we shouldn't destroy our economies - but it's just not necessary. We can move SLOWLY but steadily toward renewable energy. Anyway, the best thing to do is energy efficiency."

JF: Just go full on Thorium reactors, 4000 to 10000 of them world wide, for 300? Billion a mega factory could mass produce them in knock down form. Like a lego set. Possible? Of course it is. It would bring the cost down too. Not huge ones but mini ones. How about small underground nuclear reactors, producing about 200 to 600 MW each. Their small size would negate the enormous security apparatus required of full-size nuclear power plants. Being small would be enable them to to mass produced.

The construction cost estimates for new coal-fired power plants are about $2 billion for a new 600 MW coal plant. I wonder what a 600MW Thorium reactor power plant would cost?

I have been reading up, I really do not know that much about it yet, very interesting though. Maybe I am just dreaming! Very cool though.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:07:53 AM PDT
A customer says:
JB Frodsham - "Yes a contradiction indeed! It should have been communitarian egalitarian."

No contradiction. Americans, for instance, are incessantly telling me how their country is both egalitarian and individualistic. It's actually less egalitarian than almost any other country in the OECD, but the principle is sound.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:13:29 AM PDT
A customer says:
Barton Paul Levenson - " They also threatened us with nuclear war in 1995 if we intervened to stop a Chinese attack on Taiwan."

What would the USA do if China intervened to stop the Federal Court preventing gay marriages in California?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:14:51 AM PDT
A customer says:
Barton Paul Levenson - "Aristotle divided the world into torrid, temperate and frigid zones around 300 BC ... So climatology predates relativity and quantum mechanics. "

Salaam, salaam! We're not worthy! We're not worthy!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:29:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 2:34:28 AM PDT
JB Frodsham. says:
ElliottCB:" Right now, the atmosphere is heating the ocean. To a depth of a couple of hundred metres, in fact. That can reverse later on, and does so transiently during the ENSO cycle."

JF I do not get it? We know that oceans act upon the atmosphere, in ways not clearly understood, to influence and modify the world's climate and weather systems. When water evaporates, heat is removed from the oceans and is stored in the atmosphere by the molecules of water vapour. When condensation occurs, this stored heat is released to the atmosphere to develop the mechanical energy of its motion. The atmosphere obtains nearly half of its energy for circulation from the condensation of evaporated ocean water.

Because the oceans have an extremely high thermal capacity when compared to the atmosphere, the ocean temperatures fluctuate seasonally much less than the atmospheric temperature. For the same reason, when air blows over the water, its temperature tends to come to the temperature of the water rather than vice versa. Thus maritime climates are generally less variable than regions in the interiors of the continents.

I know that the atmosphere has a mass of : 1.5 x 10 to the p 18 tonns compared to the oceans of 5x10 to the p15 tonns so that the oceans have a greater heat capacity by 3,300 times. So it is almost impossible for the atmosphere to exert a significant heating effect on the the oceans. For to heat one litre of water by 1 deg C will take 3300 litres of air that was 2 Deg C hotter or 1 liter of air that was 3300 deg C hotter. The ocean controls the warmth of the lower atmosphere in three main ways: direct contact, infrared radiation from the ocean surface and by the removal of latent heat by evaporation.

So how can the atmosphere be heating the ocean to a depth of a couple of hundred meters? This does not make sense. I can see how solar radiation would heat the oceans but not the atmosphere. Show me the paper on it please? This is new to me so bear with me as I am trying to get to grips with the science behind it; so far it seems extreamly complex. :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:31:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 2:44:05 AM PDT
JB Frodsham. says:
Barton Paul Levenson - " They also threatened us with nuclear war in 1995 if we intervened to stop a Chinese attack on Taiwan."

JF: That attack might happen, and Viet Nam as well. Scary!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 2:44:41 AM PDT
Inhofe is from Kentucky. His major funding source is Consolidated Coal.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:08:35 AM PDT
A customer says:
JB - "According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist."

A certain segment of the posting population say that about evolution, as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:11:23 AM PDT
A customer says:
JB Frodsham - "I have 100 of my own who think very differently"

And probably SAMPLED very differently, I'll warrant.

"Yet these two questions do not even remotely address the far more important and central question of whether or not humans are causing a global warming crisis."

Now look at the thread header.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:16:38 AM PDT
A customer says:
JB Frodsham - "It could also be 1000s of years. We do not know."

We can say with a high enough degree of confidence to say that it is beyond reasonable doubt, in the political argot, that failure to act in the next decade or so commits us to devastating changes before the end of the century. And on balance of probability that mass starvation can be expected mid-Century. That's already WAY past the Precautionary Principle.

Which, incidentally, none of you seem averse to where a slim possibility of spending money to transition to renewables unnecessarily is concerned...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:29:04 AM PDT
A customer says:
JB - "Show me the paper on it please? This is new to me so bear with me as I am trying to get to grips with the science behind it; so far it seems extreamly complex"

I'm sorry to have to admit that this was only my attempt to give a simplified answer to a simplified question according to my own undertanding. Barton's really your man, but you wanted an answer.

My rationale is as follows: Heat flow into the sea has been measured, due to mixing down to a depth of a couple of hundred metres, I believe. The sea can absorb heat directly or via the atmosphere. The albedo of the sea has not yet altered really significantly, so there is no real reason to assume that the radiation budget of the sea versus the Sun has altered significantly. The atmosphere IS warming, and with a bias to LOWER altitudes. (The upper atmosphere is cooling.) Assuming a valid process of elimination - i.e. I didn't miss a source of heat - it seems to follow that the sea is heating through contact with the warming lower atmosphere.

If polar ice retreats significantly, and as it is currently thinning rapidly that is obviously a prospect, then albedo will play a greater role and the balance could reverse. If a paper exists I'd be just as glad to receive it as you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 6:41:15 AM PDT
@Elliott
The US was FORMERLY relatively egalitarian. For the past 30-40 years, however, money & power have been increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Class differences are much more pronounced now, & it is more difficult to go from one to another.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 6:48:51 AM PDT
@BPL

Actually we both seem to have gotten it wrong. He's one of Oklahoma's Senators.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/

I stand corrected in any case.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 7:22:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 7:41:11 AM PDT
JB Frodsham. says:
ElliottCB: "If a paper exists I'd be just as glad to receive it as you."

The question:: "Does the atmosphere heat or cool the ocean or the other way around?"

JF: Thanks Elliott. I have spent some time on the net trying to find a paper on it but no luck. There are some on the cooling of the ocean since 2003 to 2009, (Loshles, not there now) Yes a simple question, but not I think a simple answer. As I said before:? I know that the atmosphere has a mass of : 1.5 x 10 to the p 18 tonns compared to the oceans of 5x10 to the p15 tonns so that the oceans have a greater heat capacity by 3,300 times. So is it possible for the the atmosphere to exert a significant!! heating effect on the the oceans? I cannot see how yet clearly. There is of course mixing, but that mixing might take hundreds of years at depth. To heat one litre of water by 1 deg C will take 3300 litres of air that was 2 Deg C hotter or 1 liter of air that was 3300 deg C hotter. The ocean controls the warmth of the lower atmosphere in three main ways: direct contact, infrared radiation from the ocean surface and by the removal of latent heat by evaporation. Maybe the observed rate of warming, including heat stored in the ocean, might be significantly less than predicted. There seems to be a problem of balancing the Earth energy budget.

"90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean. The deep ocean is not well mixed. The deep ocean is made up of horizontal layers of equal density. Much of this deep ocean water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)! It's really, really cold down there!"

So even though the ocean at depth is not well mixed the cold deep water must have an effect on the water above." Deep Ocean Heat". Is it possible that "lost" heat has been transferred to the deep ocean-below the limit of our measurements?

For any given area on the ocean's surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. Consequently, as Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean must be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations.

I will keep at this one as it is whole new area to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 7:50:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 7:52:49 AM PDT
TSNTPW: "And if you want to defend the science, left us know. Reminds me also of how TeapartyWoman "

JF: I Don't think if is fair comparing me to the original Truthseeker, I am not like him at all, you know I see him on other forums occasionally. I Don't know what happened to the book he was writing, mind you as if I would know if I saw it? Unless of course it was called: "Tea Party Woman Has Climate For Lunch" By Truthseeker . Now with a title like that I would certainly notice it. lol See I can still make you laugh!:-)

TS: I was the original truthseeker. The 90 year old poster who started as TeaPartyWoman changed her name to Al Gore then Despicable, then decided to do a VERY nasty impersonation of me as Truthseeker (which she is still using.)

And YOU just put out some trash that there is no greenhouse effect, that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics forbids global warming.

ie. Unbelievable trash comparable to saying the Earth is flat.

JBF: Don't know what happened to the book he was writing

TS: SHE is still "writing" it of course.

She's still active on the Politics forum. Look what she wrote to me (you will see Truthseeker if you click on my links -- [and you can easility tie it in to the same "Truthseeker here" -- ie ignore one and the others are on ignore too.'

And I was defending Romney because she was calling him a polygamist who "tortured" his dog.

Look at the lies.

TeaPartyWoman says:
This fake TSNTP has been impersonating me for months. He belongs to the Tea Party, so he will support anyone but Obama - even someone with major character flaws like Willard.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=47&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx1ZLHC1QER1KTQ#Mx1ZLHC1QER1KTQ
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DETAILS

Look where TeaPartywoman has been posting: LEADIN POST

Why does Willard Romney only have one wife?
One of the motivations for the founder of Mormonism was to be able to officialize his extramarital relationship with his maid. Eventually he had 48 wives in total.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx1ZPL77XX944AL#Mx1ZPL77XX944AL

__________________________________________________

TeaPartyWoman

So why does Romney only have one wife? Why isn't he being a good Mormon?
TeaPartywoman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

Polygamy, or plural marriage, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints probably originated with the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr., who taught that polygamy (or at least polygyny) was a divine commandment. Smith practiced it personally, by some accounts marrying as many as 30 women.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Evidence for Smith's position is provided by "sealing" records, public marriage licenses (in many cases notarized), affidavits, letters, journals and diaries,[1] but Smith and the leading church quorums denied that he preached or practiced polygamy.[7][8] Smith's son Joseph Smith III, his widow Emma Smith, and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now called the Community of Christ) challenged the evidence and taught that Joseph Smith had opposed polygamy. They instead claimed that Brigham Young introduced plural marriage.[7][9][10][11]

Mitt Romney is DISOBEYING the divine commandment of his religion!
http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=31&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx3HV1GQWH913VY#Mx3HV1GQWH913VY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TeaPartyWoman: I can't believe that Willard was even a Mormon preacher without having more than one wife.
He's a pathetic Mormon.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=40&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx2EZOAX8MCRFQ7#Mx2EZOAX8MCRFQ7
TeaPartywoman:
The difference is that Obama was just a little kid when he ate dog, while Willard was a full-grown adult when he tortured his dog.

By the way, I am not an Obama supporter by any means, but there does not seem to be a reliable alternative.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=43&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx8U7PCQIXH7OM#Mx8U7PCQIXH7OM
TeaPartywoman:

I consider strapping a dog to the roof of a station wagon, then driving hundreds of miles to Ontario, and even worse, when the dog got sick - brutally hose the poor creature and put the dog back on the roof - I consider that animal cruelty which should be prosecuted.

Now of course TSNTP makes excuses for Willard because he's an extreme right, Libertarian conservative, who will support Willard no matter what.>>

So you fall for ANY lie, don't you.

So wow, you fell for TeaPartyWoman's LIES too. Should be revealing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 7:58:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 10:29:54 AM PDT
The question:: "Does the atmosphere heat or cool the ocean or the other way around?"

TS: HUH? Look up global warming effect and look at the basic physics. The atmosphere heats the ocean surface, but the latter can act as a sink and have exchanges back with the atmosphere that affect climate in the short term (which is probably the cause of PDO cycles.)

And there are many science articles how the mixing of temperature within the oceans. Saw one how jellyfish bring up colder water from the depths to higher levels. Etc.

Have to go now on some errands. Why not look at some general science sources.

By the way, aren't you arguing there is no greenhouse effect from your last paper?

I usually ask those types to explain to me why Venus is hotter than Mercury if there is no greenhouse effect. Be sure and let us know what he says. LOL

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 8:01:12 AM PDT
@JBF

Yes, the ocean has absorbed a great deal of the heat from AGW, & we have seen changes in phenology as a result. The oceans' capacity for heat storage is far greater than that of the atmosphere, as you say, but that doesn't mean the atmosphere can't warm the oceans at all in any circumstance.

The oceans have also absorbed a great deal of our excess anthropogenic CO2 (perhaps an even greater contribution to phenological changes than temperature). However, as they warm they absorb less CO2, so we have the potential for a positive feedback loop at some point when the oceans give up that CO2.

Perhaps we should be cautious after all?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 8:05:04 AM PDT
@TS-NTPW
Technically, TeaPartyWoman became TruthSeeker, not Truthseeker. Perhaps the capital letter allowed her to take that name, & was part of the reason Amazon didn't punish her for impersonating you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 8:22:09 AM PDT
oops. Oklahoma it is.

Where the wind comes sweeping down the plain
And the wavin' wheat
Can sure smell sweet
When the wind comes right behind the rain...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 9:12:04 AM PDT
So cutting services in your mind is equivalent to achieving a policy objective by creating terror among innocent civilians? What objective?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 9:12:44 AM PDT
I don't follow. Give me an example.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 9:15:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 9:27:54 AM PDT
JB Frodsham. says:
TSNTPW:" So wow, you fell for TeaPartyWoman's LIES too. Should be revealing.'

JF: I did NOT, where the hell did you get that from? Read my post correctly. The post on 2nd law of Thermodynamics forbids global warming was in jest. Get it??? Well I thought it funny, and it is!

I take it you do not like TeaPartyWoman?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 9:16:59 AM PDT
I believe de-Baathification was aimed at former members of the Baath party, the party of Sadaam Hussein, considered after the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein as not desirable as members of the new Iraqi military, police force, and government being constituted at that time, for understandable reasons. Of course this turned out to be a mistake, or at least blanket exclusion of all former Baath party members, since many of them turned out to be not implicated in Hussein's criminal activities. I don't see how this involved the deliberate creation of terror. Of course, when some the people being excluded as a result of this policy resorted to terror, they became terrorists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 9:21:59 AM PDT
JB Frodsham. says:
TRNTPW: "By the way, aren't you arguing there is no greenhouse effect from your last paper?I usually ask those types to explain to me why Venus is hotter than Mercury if there is no greenhouse effect. Be sure and let us know what he says. LOL"

JF: What are you talking about? Be sure to let WHO know; TruthSeeker? Not in contact, I said I had seen him posting on other forums, we did not chat. Get it??
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions