Changes in Atlantic currents

[boatman61]

Oh I agree.. in New York State the water was so bad I came outa the shower smelling worse than when I went in.. odour of bad eggs.
NC the water coming out of the taps smelling like Pamlico Sound..
Water I filled my tanks with in Florida had growths in it three weeks after leaving Ft Lauderdale.. no wonder you all only drink bottled water.
Though by all accounts even that's dodgy..

https://www.consumerreports.org/bott...-public-didnt/

[Group9]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Oh I agree.. in New York State the water was so bad I came outa the shower smelling worse than when I went in.. odour of bad eggs.
NC the water coming out of the taps smelling like Pamlico Sound..
Water I filled my tanks with in Florida had growths in it three weeks after leaving Ft Lauderdale.. no wonder you all only drink bottled water.
Though by all accounts even that's dodgy..

https://www.consumerreports.org/bott...-public-didnt/

We get our drinking water where I live now, from underground aquifers. The water is so good it almost tastes sweet.

But, yeah, when I lived in south Florida, and up in the northeast, nothing but bottled or filtered water.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Group9

We get our drinking water where I live now, from underground aquifers. The water is so good it almost tastes sweet.



But, yeah, when I lived in south Florida, and up in the northeast, nothing but bottled or filtered water.

Most of our water is surface water held in reservoirs. Filtered, fluoridated, etc it always tastes fine. Mind you, we could export rainwater to the world!!

[capn_billl]

I just have one question for the global warmers, AKA Climate change believers.

If the "Globe" is warming because of an increase from 300 to 400 Parts per million co2, preventing heat in the atmosphere from escaping into space, then post a link to the RAW data of any equatorial temperature station of 100 years of raw temperature data.

Most of our history temperature was measured with a mercury thermometer.

These are highly accurate, and their slight inaccuracy can be measured, and predicted.

Even in a lab recently we checked digital thermometers against a calibrated Standard Mercury thermometer with a tenth to one hundredth a degree offset marked on it by calibration lab.

IF the globe was indeed warming then a clear temperature rise should be seen without the seasonal variation that occurs at northern stations.

Another measurement would be to find a period of calm clear day, and night, and measure rate of IR loss by calculating rate of change of temp over 24 hours from 100 years ago, and today.

[PirateGuy]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I just have one question for the global warmers, AKA Climate change believers.


IF the globe was indeed warming then a clear temperature rise should be seen without the seasonal variation that occurs at northern stations.

Another measurement would be to find a period of calm clear day, and night, and measure rate of IR loss by calculating rate of change of temp over 24 hours from 100 years ago, and today.

I’m on the western coast of Mexico, about 24N

August/ September are way, way hotter than January/February.

Mount Kilimanjaro is nearly directly on the Equator at 3S. It has ice fields and glaciers, though these are predicted to disappear in 10 to 30 years.

You seem to have a rather simplistic view of climate and measurements.

[Don C L]

California had its hottest summer ever. Mt Shasta has no snow on its southern face and its glaciers are melting fast. How many records do we have to keep setting before everyone agrees we have a big problem?

[Joh.Ghurt]

Originally Posted by Don C L

How many records do we have to keep setting before everyone agrees we have a big problem?

Dear Don,
I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote, but most likely I totally disagree with your view of the problem. As you use the typical official rhetoric produced by all those politicians and other gravy-train riders, I assume for now you have a similar view on this.

Here's what I agree on:

• The world is getting warmer. Overall the best indication is that this is true. However there's a lot guesswork about how much due to the way this is determined. We now use satellites globally to measure the average temperature, but in 1970ies we had a lot less data-points from satellites and in 1920, all the data we have is mostly measures from various thermometers across mostly the western world. There's a bunch of meteorologist trying to guess what data of the quality we have now could have looked back in the days when there were no satellites. You can see this by tracking how the historic data has been changed (corrected) in the past few years.
• Glaciers are melting, hotter areas have more problems related to heat. Yes, that's no surprising. I lived in a area that was covered a few thousand years back by 100m of glacier. Now there's nothing like it there.
• We have a problem. Sure, when you live in a changing environment, you better adapt or suffer. It happened to the Neanderthal and the mammoths. We're no exception. If you decide you live in an area getting hotter and raved more often by wildfires, better be ready to deal with it. Same with raising sea-levels. I'm looking forward being able to sail to Paris.

What I don't agree on is running around like headless chicken with following solutions:

• Shout on tv "How dare you!" at a bunch of fat blokes
• Throw money at organisations proposing solutions which can't be measured in are reasonable time frame. Whenever some comes with a hockey-stick chart where doing nothing is indistinguishable from solving the problem for then next 5 years, he's a crook.
• Trying to force everyone else to mend their way before starting to do something yourself.

If you're afraid of the sea-levels rising, move inland or get a boat.
If you're afraid of the heat-waves, buy some property in Scotland or Alaska and build you beach-condo there for Spring-break.

[capn_billl]

Still waiting for temperature data.

Mt Kilimanjaro's ice levels were found to be from reduced rainfall not increased temperatures.

It is still way below freezing at the peak.

[jeanathon]

Just heard on the news that we haven't had a summer this hot since 1934, and the cause is due to global warming.
But you have to ask what caused it to be so hot in 1934?

[AndyEss]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I just have one question for the global warmers, AKA Climate change believers.

If the "Globe" is warming because of an increase from 300 to 400 Parts per million co2, preventing heat in the atmosphere from escaping into space, then post a link to the RAW data of any equatorial temperature station of 100 years of raw temperature data.

Most of our history temperature was measured with a mercury thermometer.

These are highly accurate, and their slight inaccuracy can be measured, and predicted.

Even in a lab recently we checked digital thermometers against a calibrated Standard Mercury thermometer with a tenth to one hundredth a degree offset marked on it by calibration lab.

IF the globe was indeed warming then a clear temperature rise should be seen without the seasonal variation that occurs at northern stations.

Another measurement would be to find a period of calm clear day, and night, and measure rate of IR loss by calculating rate of change of temp over 24 hours from 100 years ago, and today.

“Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled

Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.

Earth's climate is determined by a delicate balance between how much of the Sun's radiative energy is absorbed in the atmosphere and at the surface and how much thermal infrared radiation Earth emits to space. A positive energy imbalance means the Earth system is gaining energy, causing the planet to heat up. The doubling of the energy imbalance is the topic of a recent study, the results of which were published June 15 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth's system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up. Since approximately 90 percent of the excess energy from an energy imbalance ends up in the ocean, the overall trends of incoming and outgoing radiation should broadly agree with changes in ocean heat content.

"The two very independent ways of looking at changes in Earth's energy imbalance are in really, really good agreement, and they're both showing this very large trend, which gives us a lot of confidence that what we're seeing is a real phenomenon and not just an instrumental artifact, " said Norman Loeb, lead author for the study and principal investigator for CERES at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. "The trends we found were quite alarming in a sense."

Increases in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane due to human activity trap heat in the atmosphere, capturing outgoing radiation that would otherwise escape into space. The warming drives other changes, such as snow and ice melt, and increased water vapor and cloud changes that can further enhance the warming. Earth’s energy imbalance is the net effect of all these factors. In order to determine the primary factors driving the imbalance, the investigators used a method that looked at changes in clouds, water vapor, combined contributions from trace gases and the output of light from the Sun, surface albedo (the amount of light reflected by the Earth's surface), tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols, and changes in surface and atmospheric temperature distributions.

The study finds that the doubling of the imbalance is partially the result an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activity, also known as anthropogenic forcing, along with increases in water vapor are trapping more outgoing longwave radiation, further contributing to Earth’s energy imbalance. Additionally, the related decrease in clouds and sea ice lead to more absorption of solar energy.

The researchers also found that a flip of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from a cool phase to a warm phase likely played a major role in the intensification of the energy imbalance. The PDO is a pattern of Pacific climate variability. Its fingerprint includes a massive wedge of water in the eastern Pacific that goes through cool and warm phases. This naturally occurring internal variability in the Earth system can have far-reaching effects on weather and climate. An intensely warm PDO phase that began around 2014 and continued until 2020 caused a widespread reduction in cloud coverage over the ocean and a corresponding increase in the absorption of solar radiation.

"It's likely a mix of anthropogenic forcing and internal variability," said Loeb. "And over this period they're both causing warming, which leads to a fairly large change in Earth's energy imbalance. The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented."

Loeb cautions that the study is only a snapshot relative to long-term climate change, and that it's not possible to predict with any certainty what the coming decades might look like for the balance of Earth's energy budget. The study does conclude, however, that unless the rate of heat uptake subsides, greater changes in climate than are already occurring should be expected.

"The lengthening and highly complementary records from Argo and CERES have allowed us both to pin down Earth’s energy imbalance with increasing accuracy, and to study its variations and trends with increasing insight, as time goes on." said Gregory Johnson, co-author on the study and physical oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington. "Observing the magnitude and variations of this energy imbalance are vital to understanding Earth’s changing climate."

Joe Atkinson
NASA's Langley Research Center

(https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled)

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It’s convenient for “ deniers” to push all sorts of conspiracy theories. It’s merely a form of cognitive dissonance, ie the refusal to believe the blindingly obvious so instead a complicated and bizarre alternative strategy is created.


.

When you use the term “denier” to describe someone who disagrees with you, you are choosing to demean them rather than to put forward a convincing argument for your POV. Besides, I actually don’t think hardly anyone denies that climates everywhere are changing. Always have and always will. I also think it’s likely that the changes humans have made have something to do with it, but that’s along with lots of natural phenomenon we have absolutely no control over that has nothing to do with human activity.

So, since we pretty much all agree that climate is changing, what can we do about it? I think that’s where the great disagreement exists. Some seem to think cutting back on CO2 emissions will help, but since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 400-1000 years, none of us or our great, great, great….grandchildren will see the benefits, if any, of any sacrifices we make to decrease our carbon footprints. You driving a Prius will NOT benefit your grandchildren! Also, there are billions of poor people in the world who need access to cheap energy in order to achieve even a lifestyle that most of us would consider to be barely tolerable and for the time being, fossil fuels are the cheapest forms of energy available. Therefore, I’m in favor of continuing to develop all the alternative forms of energy and changing laws to allow nuclear plants to be built once again because it’s the only energy source that has a realistic chance to replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. When technology allows, a migration away from burning fossil fuels will occur, but it’s a ways off and until then we need to accept that it’s the reality we are stuck with. Since the climate IS unavoidably changing, our greatest focus needs to be on adapting to the changes as needed, just as all creatures and humans have done for eons. Pointing fingers and making foolish pseudo scientific claims and thinking we can changing our climate via government policy are all just negative distractions that divide us. We all need to take a step back and let actual scientists do their thing, and accept that we may occasionally need to make some inconvenient changes in our lives in order to adapt to our ever changing climate.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

Just heard on the news that we haven't had a summer this hot since 1934, and the cause is due to global warming.
But you have to ask what caused it to be so hot in 1934?

There were a lot of cow farts that year. No one knows why.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Group9

There were a lot of cow farts that year. No one knows why.

Probably because it was farking hot!

[Narfi]

Today I learned cows fart more when it is hot.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Narfi

Today I learned cows fart more when it is hot.

I recall reading a study, to that effect, recently; but can't find it now.
Have you a source?


Just for the record, cows don’t fart much methane. They mostly belch it.

“Of the CH4 (methane), produced by enteric fermentation in the forestomach, 95% was excreted by eructation (burp); and from CH4, produced in the hindgut, 89% was found to be excreted through the breath.’”

Research shows that removing all livestock and poultry, from the U.S., alone, would only reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by about by 2.6 percent in the U.S., and 0.36 percent globally.
Remember, cattle produce about 19 percent more edible protein, than they consume.

“Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture” ~ by Robin R. White and Mary Beth Hall
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301.abstract