Random Politics & Religion #00

They're called ocean cycles, and I mentioned those about 5 pages ago as response to the post you quoted. They faciliate heat transfer between the water and atmosphere and tend to pop up every few decades. This then has an effect on the short-term variability of Earth's climate and likely why we see decade-long "pauses" in atmospheric temperature. There's nothing "unseen" about it.

People seem to keep missing that heat travels from hotter to less hot, and when a temperature differential exists in liquids and gasses, there is almost always a corresponding current. Those currents behave different in a dynamic environment than they do in a closed loop like a giant theoretical tank. Those scenarios also assume you have a heat source of some type in a fixed location.

Good for you.

Wiki says the theory is about 17 years old (1997), meaning that in 2004 when Gore was pumping out his movie this influence was known of but yet somehow wasn't included as part of the mosaic of "settled science". Took alarmists almost another 10 years to pin this as the end all reason why warming has paused. You're still spouting the "settled science" part when you've been proven demonstrably wrong over and over again in your predictions. There's no reason to give you any legitimate credibility.

If you're ocean cycle theory is indeed the likely cause of the pause in warming, what years will temps begin to rise again? What will it mean if temps begin to rise before that, after that?

If the ocean currents play such a big role in our climate, how much of previous warming do we get to shove onto it instead of man? I mean if ocean cycles are capable of slowing a warming trend down to 0 or even negative if they work against it, then aren't they capable of making it look like there's a warming trend when there isn't one?

Would you prefer a phrasing along the lines of "where the pressure wave exceeds the retaining capacity of the materials utilized"?


In any event:
Not knowing everything about something isn't the same as knowing nothing about it. And because something is applicable at one area, where one process is dominant, doesn't mean that it is applicable in another area, where another process is dominant.
Which is why when you make a generalization that certainly has known specific failures (hot fluid rises), where the specific failures are in particular interest for the systems at hand, it comes across poorly.
You are equating two completely different claims; a claim of a lack of human understanding, versus a claim of a lack of an individual understanding. Those aren't even remotely equivalent, and we won't even touch the veracity of the second claim.

But again, back to unknown undersea volcanoes: a simple back of the envelope calculation would indicate that you would need a significant enough source of energy that it would likely not be unknown, as it would likely have significant other impacts.

I mean, consider size, scope, and relative impact of the mid-Atlantic ridge.

I thought hot air was caused by Congress?

Wiki says it was named in '97, dude. lol

I've never ever used the phrase "settled science". That's your projection.

Ocean cycles are not predictable enough to pinpoint them by year.

You're not understanding the concept of an energy balance. If the ocean were heating the atmosphere, then the ocean would be getting cooler as it loses heat. It's not. What is happening now, in a super-simplified way, is the excess energy is being stored in the shallower waters and land temperatures are "cooling" (that is, warming is slower) as parts of the atmosphere shed excess heat. Once the cycle ends, we would expect the warming trend to continue. That is not to say there aren't still more factors to consider, but it seems to be the prevalent one.

where's the list of things nausi doesn't understand?

we've got something to add gdi, & all I can come up with is earthquakes.

Math
Economics
Social Justice
History
Science
Philosophy
Tides
Logic
That there are more political perspectives than Good v. Liberal

That and Al Gore.

Witchcraft I tells ya !

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/


I don't even know where to begin... What a cluster *** this nation has become.

Still illegal for the business to "hire" anyone without a work permit or who isn't legally allowed to work in the country.

Are we pretending that Americans and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs?

Such good little liberals, as long as it doesn't effect the educated or well paid Americans why would you care. So much for caring about the "lower class" you guys are always trying to defend huh.

Depends on which illegals, but yes some people who have overstayed their visas do compete for the same jobs. Definitely not what most consider "illegals" when they think of the term, but no usually most American born citizens don't go catching fowl, or plucking apples, but there's some fields where they do compete and heavily.

But basically my complaint would be in the tech sector, which we've discussed in the other thread already my (and others) disdain for that debacle, so no real point into getting into it again.

There's a point though: those working legally should have to pay into the insurance nonsense as well, if only we had single payer.

You're sorely mistaken if you are still confusing me for a liberal, but we already know that.

Other than your gun fetish which a lot of liberals do have. Please enlighten all of us on your conservative views.

Hypocrite much?

Have more than just guns, and it's far from a fetish, you wouldn't comprehend it even if I tried.

As for the other crap: na, not at all.

You're just naturally abrasive huh.

1st, are you really suggesting that when I say it was discovered I meant it didn't exist before then? Clearly Columbus created America when he discovered it yo!

2nd, you've referenced the 97% consensus before, don't pretend you don't use it to bury skepticism via a mob fiat.

3rd, like the typical alarmist, you haven't answered any specifics. You're arguing that this ocean cycle is a variable modifier on the climate equation. On one hand in this particular cycle it is absorbing the excess energy in the atmosphere thereby cooling it. So once the cycle ends it will put all that heat back into the atmosphere right?

So, if it oscillates between a dampening effect and not a dampening effect, how much of the largely agreed upon 1 degree warming over the last century can we attribute to being at a particular point on this ocean cycle? If we cannot attribute any previous warming to this cycle then you really can't argue it's cyclical effect on the climate. If you cannot predict it and it could last decades you're arguing that we could possibly see 30 years of cooling before we warm up again?

Either way, you personally are just parroting the guesses of the "scientists" you read. As I've said before, alarmists have been proven wrong over and over again on their guesses. Why should they be afforded any more credibility?

wat
The fact that a large proportion of experts agree should mean something.
What I mean is that once the cycle ends, the heating of the atmosphere will continue on as before.

The influence of decadal cycles results in short-term variability. It's basically noise in the long-term climate trend. You wouldn't attribute warming directly to the ocean because it's not the primary mechanism through which the planet is accumulating heat. Think of it as a symptom.

These cycles normally persist for around 20 years. This means temperature will still remain high but relatively stable for a few years more before increasing, yes.

Yeah, I've read "studies" by "scientists" containing "evidence" and "reasoning". It's how one learns things, lol.

This was pretty funny

Everyone focuses on the immigrants as the problem, when corrupt or exploitative personal and business practices are the culprits.

Focus on fixing those exploitative practices (and the cultural permission which celebrates *** someone over as hard as you possibly can), and many of these peripheral issues will be resolved as well.

Was going to say "Not as abrasive as your mom is" but I wouldn't want to lower myself by insinuating that.

So I'll just go with, sure.

indeed

I thought Muslims discovered America?

I just realized that Zicdeh hasn't posted in quite a while. King too. Are any of the other P&R regulars missing?