I have dove in the pacific off of Hawaii a few times and the temperatureat 60 feetis dropping there too! And in the great lakes I the temperature bouys are recording a much higher temperature then what see at the bouys
Funny I have been diving in the Gulf of Mexico just off of Porto Morals every November for the last 7 years and over that time the temperature at 60 feet has dropped just under 5 degrees! And that part of the Gulf drives the Gulf Stream that warms most of the northern hemisphere!
@grindupBaker do you have any verifiable data? I mean from a consistent source over any period of time? No, you don't. All of the data collection methods have been constantly altered since the late 80s. Look at the real data there is none published! You have to find some consistent sources!
@grindupBaker the Stevenson protocol was developed in the 17th century as the standard for temperature measurement. In the late 80, we repositioned all of the measurement sites to give a much higher reading! Then in the late 90s we threw out the Stevenson Shelter and replaced it with a metal hot box's to scue the readings even farther! Then NOAA started replacing all of their ocean bouy data that didn't match the models with an average that they generated! We have no idea at all what the world temperature has done. But we do know beyond a doubt that a ww2 fiter that landed on Greenland in 1942 was found under 300 feet of ice in the 21st century, and we do beyond any doubt that captain Scott's first 1911 camp on the shore of the antarctic is over 100 miles in on the ice shelf now and they brought UT a case of Scotch and seal pelts from under 200 feet of ice! That is undeniable proof how fast the ice is melting.(NOT)
@grindupBaker I am surprised that any of the alarmists have survived walking around with their eyes closed to keep from seeing the truth? How many thousand sea turtles were saved from cold shock in galviston TX last year, and how many do they estimate died from it? Why were there no cold water shocked turtles before 1998? Why was the Lockheed lightning that landed on Greenland in 1942 found under 300 feet of ice in 2018? Why is Scott's base camp from 1919 100 miles from the edge of the Antarctica ice shelf, and why did they selvage a case of Scotch and seal pelts from under 200 feet of ice there? Rite, that is how fast the ice is melting! Keep your eye closed or you will lose your mind!
130 years is not a long time in the planets history so what happened in the other millennium before. Obviously the temperature would have been a lot lower during the last ice age that happened without any help from humans.
Where do you read this drivel? You will believe anything the globalists shove down your throat. Try a dose of this common sense article of how warm things have been in the past.www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/ecoalert-earth-was-stifling-hot-during-peak-age-of-dinosaurs-1.html
@@dangoddess The Daily Galaxy? Drivel? One and the same. Try NASA, NCAR, Sripps, MIT or U of California to discover there are many important drivers of global warming and climate change other than the actions of mankind. Read more than comic books.
This is what’s so alarming about global warming, the rate that the oceans are warming, there’s nothing like the rate in global human history. Humanity historical changes should be emphasized if you are looking to what it means for civilization.
We know the oceans conduct the management of global thermal energy, with much thanks to data shown in this video. If you look up things like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) you will see that shifts in the distribution of warm and cold water within the oceans (unless they help cancel each other) coincides with shifts in global temperature, especially when they stack. Forgetting that the absorption of thermal energy can be downplayed by colder surface waters, during these oscillations, is forgetting that the bar has been raised on global surface temperatures--at least, as I understand. In my own developing layman view, I think we have seen this effect in a big way since the 1940s. For instance, the PDO flips to a "cool" phase in the late 1940s during some of the largest solar activity on record, where previous temperatures had followed increasing solar activity quite well. Then this monumental solar activity, especially in the solar peaks of the 1950-60s could still be recognized in the PDO with changes during this "cool" phase (just look at the 1960 mark), but the remainder of its effect on global temperatures remained visibly latent, I think, until it flipped to a "warm" phase again. In other words, on the "PDO index" and "AMO index" the "cool" phases lessened most of the thermal contribution of solar irradiance to global temperatures, while simultaneously the solar irradiance between 1945 and 1975 virtually nullified an otherwise significant PDO cooling affect in global temperatures--and so on. I think this may have "raised the bar" and added warming which should have taken place in the 50s and 60s it to the "warm" phases of the PDO and AMO, moving in after 1975. I'm just looking at these oceans and this timescale for simplicity's sake, but I think things like this can explain much of the deviation between global temperature and solar activity since it began--especially after you take into account the big missing piece: cloud cover qualities over all latitudes.
Yes, precisely my point. When global temperatures rise they tend to be held higher and drop slower thanks to clouds and other insulators of Infrared. In addition to an increasing Infrared containment, clouds also very likely reduce their reflection of sunlight as the Earth warms, representing the most dramatic warming feedback contributing toward a higher global climate sensitivity.
Why are you putting up such a fuss? Are you determined to enter debate with people who've agreed with you? I can provide sources which make you a fool, if you really want that, but you aught to choose your conflicts more wisely. I have not said that cloud cover increased. I have not said climatologists are wrong, though many do get cloud estimates wrong (and therefore climate sensitivity). You need no further proof than the fact that clouds are the largest and most important uncertainty in climatology, and they're the primary reason for failure among the climate models. Even models which manage to produce a net cloud radiative forcing estimate that fits the data do this in entirely different ways, so they can't all be correct. This is according to the climatologists themselves. This is why neither myself or climatology can provide you with definitive numbers on climate sensitivity, though climatologists try their best. So, why don't you tell me their numbers, hmm? if you're so confident they're definitively known.
Ah yes, people always make that mistake when I mention the implications of clouds in climatology. I may be wrong, but you're probably used to deniers arguing that clouds have a cooling effect which nullifies global warming--or something like that. I've had this happen many times, which is why I try to be polite with people who disagree. I appreciate you acknowledging your misunderstanding; it shows an intelligence that most on TH-cam don't have. Anyway, I'm not any more than a layman myself, but I can tell from your earlier post that you don't fully understand the importance of clouds in climatology. I say this not to be insulting in any way, but to recommend a video from this same series that's probably the most comprehensive video on TH-cam regarding clouds and their importance to climatology, if you're interested. It's titled 'Changing Clouds in a Changing Climate - Perspectives on Ocean Science', and it may be an old video but climatology hasn't progressed enough to render it outdated yet.
The process global frying has only just begun. Add in positive feedbacks such as loss of albedo effect, methane release, permafrost Co2 release, loss of ice and glacier cooling effect and 20 others and we can easily see its going to get a lot worse than IPCC predictions/forecasts. We are already 80 years ahead of those. The revised forecast is 4'c by 2050. Everyone who has a brain knows this is still the most conservative forecast. Our habitat does not survive, drought becomes the normal, starvation becomes common place, civilisation collapses into a fight for survival. Most humans on earth will loose this fight for survival. If any humans survive it will be in the order of 1000s, not millions or billions. The Dinosaurs did not survive, The Permian animals did not survive, the creates creatures did not survive. All succumb to a hot house earth because it creates an Anoxic Ocean Event.
Mark Young. Having hit most of the alarmist buttons, have you factored in Stefan-Boltzmann Effect response to temperature change? Most alarmists seem to pass over this one. Have you calculated the energy input required to sustain a 4 degree C temperature increase?
@@julianfell666 CO2 is excellent for the atmosphere. We are at 1/10th the levels that are considered dangerous of we were in an encapsulated environment, which we're not. CO2 feeds plant life and releases 100 times the breathable 02 for ever CO2 molecule it feeds on. Methane is so unstable unless is resides in a trapped pocket, like a manure pile. The thing is...these alarmists actually know they're lying while invoking their best feints at caring, but only to feed off the fears of common folks.
@@danielevans5864 You are absolutely correct. For Mr Young I will now answer my rhetorical question. A sustained 4 degree increase in temperature would be a 1.3% increase in temperature (Kelvin). To overcome the increased heat loss this would cause (emission being proportional to Kelvin T raised to the 4th power; -stefan-boltzmann law) the solar input would have to increase by 5.3%. You would have to move the planet 8 million miles closer to the sun to achieve this rise in temperature. The Catastrophic predictions of the climate alarmists are pure bull...raised to the 4th power. BTW methane oxidizes to CO2, half life 13 years.
@grindupBaker For that to work you would have to store this excess retained heat. Where are you going to store it? Atmosphere has no storage capacity, it looses back to space the same amount of energy received every 24 hours. The great heat sink of the oceans (which contains 96% of cycled energy and 1500 times more energy than the atmosphere) is not affected thermally by CO2 or atmospheric heat. As in CO2 cannot cause the ocean to gain heat and the ocean surface temperature is 1 to 2 degrees warmer than the air above it. Finally, no matter how anything might increase global temperature, stefan-boltzman will substantially mute it. The simple reality is that stefan boltzmann will (and does) defeat everything that raises temperature. The only mechanism that can cause the planet surface to warm is to increase sunshine by reducing cloud cover because this adds heat to the oceans and even here the increase enabled is small.
@grindupBaker Facts please. Not IPCC BS. Show us the physics. State how I am "massively ignorant etc". In my experience your average warmista has no physics, no facts, no math. In the KGB vernacular, they are useful idiots.
That is one of the reasons America is such a joke - trump being "prez" is icing on the cake - the cake that the fat little bitch will probably eat all of in 3 big bites and wash it down with a gallon of sugar-laden soda!! go america!!
Hey climate guys- Earth warms and ice caps melt- 1.Billionaires will find their beach front mansions under water-new beach is inland where poor people live- billionaires must pay poor people huge amounts for the beach property- hooray for wealth redistribution 2. Sea levels rise- whale habitat increases- and their population expands- Yay for whales 3. More ocean means more fish which means more seafood for the poor - Go poor people!! 4. Expansion of sea surface means more rainfall and more fresh water-Down with droughts!! 5. More rainfall means deserts across the globe become arable farmland and we have a huge surplus of low cost food- great for previously starving, but now overweight Africans. 6. melted glaciers mean Siberia, N. Canada, Antarctica, Greenland and Iceland are now open for people to move and live there- Yes to homesteading.
An important history of the science. Worth seeing at any time. Thanks.
I have dove in the pacific off of Hawaii a few times and the temperatureat 60 feetis dropping there too! And in the great lakes I the temperature bouys are recording a much higher temperature then what see at the bouys
what will the stored heat eventually do to atmospheric circulations?
Funny I have been diving in the Gulf of Mexico just off of Porto Morals every November for the last 7 years and over that time the temperature at 60 feet has dropped just under 5 degrees! And that part of the Gulf drives the Gulf Stream that warms most of the northern hemisphere!
@grindupBaker do you have any verifiable data? I mean from a consistent source over any period of time? No, you don't. All of the data collection methods have been constantly altered since the late 80s. Look at the real data there is none published! You have to find some consistent sources!
@grindupBaker the Stevenson protocol was developed in the 17th century as the standard for temperature measurement. In the late 80, we repositioned all of the measurement sites to give a much higher reading! Then in the late 90s we threw out the Stevenson Shelter and replaced it with a metal hot box's to scue the readings even farther! Then NOAA started replacing all of their ocean bouy data that didn't match the models with an average that they generated! We have no idea at all what the world temperature has done. But we do know beyond a doubt that a ww2 fiter that landed on Greenland in 1942 was found under 300 feet of ice in the 21st century, and we do beyond any doubt that captain Scott's first 1911 camp on the shore of the antarctic is over 100 miles in on the ice shelf now and they brought UT a case of Scotch and seal pelts from under 200 feet of ice! That is undeniable proof how fast the ice is melting.(NOT)
@grindupBaker I am surprised that any of the alarmists have survived walking around with their eyes closed to keep from seeing the truth? How many thousand sea turtles were saved from cold shock in galviston TX last year, and how many do they estimate died from it? Why were there no cold water shocked turtles before 1998? Why was the Lockheed lightning that landed on Greenland in 1942 found under 300 feet of ice in 2018? Why is Scott's base camp from 1919 100 miles from the edge of the Antarctica ice shelf, and why did they selvage a case of Scotch and seal pelts from under 200 feet of ice there? Rite, that is how fast the ice is melting! Keep your eye closed or you will lose your mind!
130 years is not a long time in the planets history so what happened in the other millennium before. Obviously the temperature would have been a lot lower during the last ice age that happened without any help from humans.
Where do you read this drivel? You will believe anything the globalists shove down your throat. Try a dose of this common sense article of how warm things have been in the past.www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/ecoalert-earth-was-stifling-hot-during-peak-age-of-dinosaurs-1.html
@@dangoddess The Daily Galaxy? Drivel? One and the same. Try NASA, NCAR, Sripps, MIT or U of California to discover there are many important drivers of global warming and climate change other than the actions of mankind. Read more than comic books.
This is what’s so alarming about global warming, the rate that the oceans are warming, there’s nothing like the rate in global human history. Humanity historical changes should be emphasized if you are looking to what it means for civilization.
In the summary - temp changes last 100 years.. should it not be last 135 years?
We know the oceans conduct the management of global thermal energy, with much thanks to data shown in this video. If you look up things like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) you will see that shifts in the distribution of warm and cold water within the oceans (unless they help cancel each other) coincides with shifts in global temperature, especially when they stack. Forgetting that the absorption of thermal energy can be downplayed by colder surface waters, during these oscillations, is forgetting that the bar has been raised on global surface temperatures--at least, as I understand.
In my own developing layman view, I think we have seen this effect in a big way since the 1940s. For instance, the PDO flips to a "cool" phase in the late 1940s during some of the largest solar activity on record, where previous temperatures had followed increasing solar activity quite well. Then this monumental solar activity, especially in the solar peaks of the 1950-60s could still be recognized in the PDO with changes during this "cool" phase (just look at the 1960 mark), but the remainder of its effect on global temperatures remained visibly latent, I think, until it flipped to a "warm" phase again. In other words, on the "PDO index" and "AMO index" the "cool" phases lessened most of the thermal contribution of solar irradiance to global temperatures, while simultaneously the solar irradiance between 1945 and 1975 virtually nullified an otherwise significant PDO cooling affect in global temperatures--and so on. I think this may have "raised the bar" and added warming which should have taken place in the 50s and 60s it to the "warm" phases of the PDO and AMO, moving in after 1975. I'm just looking at these oceans and this timescale for simplicity's sake, but I think things like this can explain much of the deviation between global temperature and solar activity since it began--especially after you take into account the big missing piece: cloud cover qualities over all latitudes.
Yes indeed, and that cloud cover greatly influences global temperature in turn.
Yes, precisely my point. When global temperatures rise they tend to be held higher and drop slower thanks to clouds and other insulators of Infrared. In addition to an increasing Infrared containment, clouds also very likely reduce their reflection of sunlight as the Earth warms, representing the most dramatic warming feedback contributing toward a higher global climate sensitivity.
Why are you putting up such a fuss? Are you determined to enter debate with people who've agreed with you? I can provide sources which make you a fool, if you really want that, but you aught to choose your conflicts more wisely.
I have not said that cloud cover increased. I have not said climatologists are wrong, though many do get cloud estimates wrong (and therefore climate sensitivity). You need no further proof than the fact that clouds are the largest and most important uncertainty in climatology, and they're the primary reason for failure among the climate models. Even models which manage to produce a net cloud radiative forcing estimate that fits the data do this in entirely different ways, so they can't all be correct. This is according to the climatologists themselves. This is why neither myself or climatology can provide you with definitive numbers on climate sensitivity, though climatologists try their best.
So, why don't you tell me their numbers, hmm? if you're so confident they're definitively known.
Ah yes, people always make that mistake when I mention the implications of clouds in climatology. I may be wrong, but you're probably used to deniers arguing that clouds have a cooling effect which nullifies global warming--or something like that. I've had this happen many times, which is why I try to be polite with people who disagree. I appreciate you acknowledging your misunderstanding; it shows an intelligence that most on TH-cam don't have.
Anyway, I'm not any more than a layman myself, but I can tell from your earlier post that you don't fully understand the importance of clouds in climatology. I say this not to be insulting in any way, but to recommend a video from this same series that's probably the most comprehensive video on TH-cam regarding clouds and their importance to climatology, if you're interested. It's titled 'Changing Clouds in a Changing Climate - Perspectives on Ocean Science', and it may be an old video but climatology hasn't progressed enough to render it outdated yet.
The process global frying has only just begun. Add in positive feedbacks such as loss of albedo effect, methane release, permafrost Co2 release, loss of ice and glacier cooling effect and 20 others and we can easily see its going to get a lot worse than IPCC predictions/forecasts. We are already 80 years ahead of those. The revised forecast is 4'c by 2050. Everyone who has a brain knows this is still the most conservative forecast. Our habitat does not survive, drought becomes the normal, starvation becomes common place, civilisation collapses into a fight for survival. Most humans on earth will loose this fight for survival. If any humans survive it will be in the order of 1000s, not millions or billions. The Dinosaurs did not survive, The Permian animals did not survive, the creates creatures did not survive. All succumb to a hot house earth because it creates an Anoxic Ocean Event.
Mark Young. Having hit most of the alarmist buttons, have you factored in Stefan-Boltzmann Effect response to temperature change? Most alarmists seem to pass over this one. Have you calculated the energy input required to sustain a 4 degree C temperature increase?
@@julianfell666
CO2 is excellent for the atmosphere. We are at 1/10th the levels that are considered dangerous of we were in an encapsulated environment, which we're not. CO2 feeds plant life and releases 100 times the breathable 02 for ever CO2 molecule it feeds on.
Methane is so unstable unless is resides in a trapped pocket, like a manure pile.
The thing is...these alarmists actually know they're lying while invoking their best feints at caring, but only to feed off the fears of common folks.
@@danielevans5864 You are absolutely correct. For Mr Young I will now answer my rhetorical question. A sustained 4 degree increase in temperature would be a 1.3% increase in temperature (Kelvin). To overcome the increased heat loss this would cause (emission being proportional to Kelvin T raised to the 4th power; -stefan-boltzmann law) the solar input would have to increase by 5.3%. You would have to move the planet 8 million miles closer to the sun to achieve this rise in temperature. The Catastrophic predictions of the climate alarmists are pure bull...raised to the 4th power. BTW methane oxidizes to CO2, half life 13 years.
@grindupBaker For that to work you would have to store this excess retained heat. Where are you going to store it? Atmosphere has no storage capacity, it looses back to space the same amount of energy received every 24 hours. The great heat sink of the oceans (which contains 96% of cycled energy and 1500 times more energy than the atmosphere) is not affected thermally by CO2 or atmospheric heat. As in CO2 cannot cause the ocean to gain heat and the ocean surface temperature is 1 to 2 degrees warmer than the air above it. Finally, no matter how anything might increase global temperature, stefan-boltzman will substantially mute it. The simple reality is that stefan boltzmann will (and does) defeat everything that raises temperature. The only mechanism that can cause the planet surface to warm is to increase sunshine by reducing cloud cover because this adds heat to the oceans and even here the increase enabled is small.
@grindupBaker Facts please. Not IPCC BS. Show us the physics. State how I am "massively ignorant etc". In my experience your average warmista has no physics, no facts, no math. In the KGB vernacular, they are useful idiots.
Honey Boo Boo is more entertaining to more viewers.
That is one of the reasons America is such a joke - trump being "prez" is icing on the cake - the cake that the fat little bitch will probably eat all of in 3 big bites and wash it down with a gallon of sugar-laden soda!! go america!!
High temperature causes CO2 NOT the other way BTW.
@grindupBaker so sorry for your brainwashing and belonging to a cult type of ideology
Hey climate guys-
Earth warms and ice caps melt-
1.Billionaires will find their beach front mansions under water-new beach is inland where poor people live- billionaires must pay poor people huge amounts for the beach property- hooray for wealth redistribution
2. Sea levels rise- whale habitat increases- and their population expands- Yay for whales
3. More ocean means more fish which means more seafood for the poor - Go poor people!!
4. Expansion of sea surface means more rainfall and more fresh water-Down with droughts!!
5. More rainfall means deserts across the globe become arable farmland and we have a huge surplus of low cost food- great for previously starving, but now overweight Africans.
6. melted glaciers mean Siberia, N. Canada, Antarctica, Greenland and Iceland are now open for people to move and live there- Yes to homesteading.
Wow only one Trump Tarde found this so far
I wonder who helped him, since, if he's a trump supporter he's gotta be barely literate.
49 Libtards found it so far.
Well since your presentation is in the United States it would be proper for you to do the conversion before you present .....
Instead of your audience trying to convert it while they're trying to listen to you doesn't make much sense
grindupBaker If Americans and their colleges are so bad, then why do so many foreigners come here to learn??
No science report again we are coming to the end of a 10,000 year 'warming cycle''.? 😉
PC