Talk-Polywell.org

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/a ... d-to-melt/

If the ice doesn't melt according to the models - then there's something wrong with the models.

Comparing theory to reality - if the theory doesn't match observed reality it ain't the reality that's wrong.

There was also an interesting little bit on the ideal gas law - PV=nRT

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/10/13 ... n-pivnurt/

A warmed gas expands. A cooled one contracts. (Volumes staying more or less equal.) If the atmosphere is warming, then it should be expanding. If it's warming due to heating, we should be seeing that in increased orbital decay rates... which I can't find any reference to.

Sigh.

Watts is an actor, not a scientist of any description. He holds no degree in anything.

Also, note:

This is a typical denier trick, bringing something that's already been proven false out again like nobody ever proved anything.

Another lie.

You're lying again.

See, in science, once something's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, like gravity, you have to have some evidence to show it doesn't apply now, like in orbit. You keep trying to bring up old disproven BS to "re-introduce doubt." The Jesuits invented that tactic for denying the truth. At every turn another excuse. That's why you're called "apologists."

We don't accept the phlogiston hypothesis any more either, and "re-introducing doubt" about it won't help you.

Get over it.

Didn't even bother to look, did you?

Must be nice to know everything... You've got everything so nicely categorized and sorted out.

Yet, reality keeps getting in the way of theory. Isn't that sad?

Is this a lie?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Are they lying?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

Is that a lie?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png

Is this false?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png

How about this?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

Better get to work telling them they're lying.

And if you wonder why I criticize Watts for being an actor, it's because

1. He's adept at causing people to suspend disbelief, and
2. He doesn't have a science degree and therefore cannot do the calculus (math) to have a sensible opinion. His opinions are based on how he feels and the Sun and Milankovitch Cycle and other real factors do not intrude upon his ignorance.

These are precisely the people who become ruthless flacks, willing to tell any lie. I have encountered them trying to sell Jeeps and Dodges.

JLawson wrote:Didn't even bother to look, did you?

Not at Watts.

JLawson wrote:Didn't even bother to look, did you?

Must be nice to know everything... You've got everything so nicely categorized and sorted out.

Yet, reality keeps getting in the way of theory. Isn't that sad?

Is this a lie?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Are they lying?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

Is that a lie?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png

Is this false?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png

How about this?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

Better get to work telling them they're lying.

BTW you do realize that the ice refreezing finger thin in the Arctic doesn't equal the hundred-foot thick drifts of ice that existed two decades ago, and had existed for a million years, right?

See, here we are again: deniers can't count. You haven't the slightest idea what "a million years" means. I might as well have said "flurgle the fnortners."

And last but not least you're lying again: 14,000 to 25.

Schneibster wrote:

JLawson wrote:Didn't even bother to look, did you?

Not at Watts.

And that says everything needed.

Thank you! I appreciate your honesty.

JLawson wrote:

Schneibster wrote:

JLawson wrote:Didn't even bother to look, did you?

Not at Watts.

And that says everything needed.

Thank you! I appreciate your honesty.

JL,
Don't waste your time with this closed mind. He's never going to look at what you provide and he's got nothing to really contribute, so it's pointless.

I'm not posting for him - he's certainly shown himself to be a scientific bigot who's so convinced of his own superior intellect he can't imagine anyone else might have good data that HE hasn't signed off on.

There's other people here, however, who will look at ALL sources - whether they're vetted and approved by Schneibster or not - and decide for themselves whether the data is believable and what relevance it's got in the AGW discussion.

I don't have the time right now to dig it up, but I was looking at a site where a AWG believer claimed the heat was being hidden in the deep ocean, and someone else pointed out they've measured the temperature of the shallow ocean the whole time. Since the shallow ocean would have to pass this heat to the deep ocean, we should have seen the shallow ocean heat up, it hasn't.

choff wrote:I don't have the time right now to dig it up, but I was looking at a site where a AWG believer claimed the heat was being hidden in the deep ocean, and someone else pointed out they've measured the temperature of the shallow ocean the whole time. Since the shallow ocean would have to pass this heat to the deep ocean, we should have seen the shallow ocean heat up, it hasn't.

I think that if that were actually happening people would be talking about increases in the circulation cells. Here's a post. I find it amazing that it's so easy to find the correct information at Watts:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03 ... -up-to-be/
Crossposted right across the internet, yet some people are so afraid to even look. Watts is the go to place because Watts more than likely has posts from people doing the science or connected with the people doing the science. In any case it doesn't look as if they are finding a great deal of heat in the deep oceans. On the other hand water sores heat very well and the ocean can store a great deal of heat without showing large temperature changes. The ocean is a huge heat sink for the planet. Yet another reason to believe that we don't really fully understand climate.

choff wrote:I don't have the time right now to dig it up, but I was looking at a site where a AWG believer claimed the heat was being hidden in the deep ocean, and someone else pointed out they've measured the temperature of the shallow ocean the whole time. Since the shallow ocean would have to pass this heat to the deep ocean, we should have seen the shallow ocean heat up, it hasn't.

Nice try.

If the heat only transits the shallow ocean, then it won't heat up.

Heat flows from areas that are hotter to areas that are colder. It's one of those, you know, science things.

You might have noticed it doing that on your stove from time to time.

Jccarlton wrote:

choff wrote:I don't have the time right now to dig it up, but I was looking at a site where a AWG believer claimed the heat was being hidden in the deep ocean, and someone else pointed out they've measured the temperature of the shallow ocean the whole time. Since the shallow ocean would have to pass this heat to the deep ocean, we should have seen the shallow ocean heat up, it hasn't.

I think that if that were actually happening people would be talking about increases in the circulation cells. Here's a post. I find it amazing that it's so easy to find the correct information at Watts:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03 ... -up-to-be/
Crossposted right across the internet, yet some people are so afraid to even look. Watts is the go to place because Watts more than likely has posts from people doing the science or connected with the people doing the science. In any case it doesn't look as if they are finding a great deal of heat in the deep oceans. On the other hand water sores heat very well and the ocean can store a great deal of heat without showing large temperature changes. The ocean is a huge heat sink for the planet. Yet another reason to believe that we don't really fully understand climate.

If you're finding that heat doesn't flow in the ocean, you're lying again.

Now if you were more than half bright you already checked the specific heat of water and realized the ocean can hold the same amount of heat in its top 33 feet as the entire hundred miles of atmosphere. That means the whole ocean can hold as much heat as 800 entire Earth atmospheres.

And we haven't even discussed the latent heat of vaporization, something that happens en masse on a daily basis, sucking heat out of the ocean and atmosphere both.

Because if you were to forget specific heat then you'd be really, really dumb.

But the dumbest thing of all would be to forget the ocean has these things called "currents" in it. You know, like as in it doesn't just sit there.

Just sayin'.