• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A real visual on current Global Temperature.

Who knows, we only have Sat data and the rare ship report.

I don't think the ship reports were that rare. Every day I was at sea I sent my report to NOAA. For all the ships I've served on NOAA reports were SOP. That along with thousands of buoys reporting is why we have good data on ocean temperatures. Since the oceans are our planets largest heatsink, their change in temp is very important. For the last 100 years ocean temps have gone up 0.13 degrees per decade, so in those 100 years a 1.3 degree increase. Doesn't seem like much until you go back to high school physics and remember to raise one gram of water one degree requires one calorie of energy. Anyone want to guess how many grams of water our oceans represent? That is a lot of energy and as we all know our weather patterns are altered by ocean temperatures. It has always been a balancing act between energy from the sun being absorbed vs reflected. The more greenhouse gases released, the more energy absorbed and less reflected.
 
I don't think the ship reports were that rare. Every day I was at sea I sent my report to NOAA. For all the ships I've served on NOAA reports were SOP. That along with thousands of buoys reporting is why we have good data on ocean temperatures. Since the oceans are our planets largest heatsink, their change in temp is very important. For the last 100 years ocean temps have gone up 0.13 degrees per decade, so in those 100 years a 1.3 degree increase. Doesn't seem like much until you go back to high school physics and remember to raise one gram of water one degree requires one calorie of energy. Anyone want to guess how many grams of water our oceans represent? That is a lot of energy and as we all know our weather patterns are altered by ocean temperatures. It has always been a balancing act between energy from the sun being absorbed vs reflected. The more greenhouse gases released, the more energy absorbed and less reflected.
Even the NOAA sea surface reconstruction shows temperatures leveling off around 2000.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acce...constructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v3b
 
We all know hurricanes get their energy from water temperature and the one about to slam Mexico is the strongest (so far) in recorded history. The water temps in that region are also highest in recorded history, so is there a chance a few more climate skeptics might change their stripes?
 
We all know hurricanes get their energy from water temperature and the one about to slam Mexico is the strongest (so far) in recorded history. The water temps in that region are also highest in recorded history, so is there a chance a few more climate skeptics might change their stripes?
Are you discounting natural effects like changing cloud cover and solar energy? Clouds play a crucial role in how much solar energy makes it to the seas, and the Gulf has different dynamics because of its depth, latitude, and being surrounded by land.

These things are cyclical in nature. We only have a little over 30 years of good satellite storm coverage.

I could go back to the worse storm since 1900 in the pacific northwest. It happened in 1962. More than 40 years ago.

Keep in mind that recorded history for such waters isn't very long. The solar energy peaked in 1958, and takes decades to equalize to the surface and atmosphere.

Don't assume CO2 is the cause. It's minor in effect compared to the solar/ocean/atmosphere coupling.
 
I don't think the ship reports were that rare. Every day I was at sea I sent my report to NOAA. For all the ships I've served on NOAA reports were SOP. That along with thousands of buoys reporting is why we have good data on ocean temperatures. Since the oceans are our planets largest heatsink, their change in temp is very important. For the last 100 years ocean temps have gone up 0.13 degrees per decade, so in those 100 years a 1.3 degree increase. Doesn't seem like much until you go back to high school physics and remember to raise one gram of water one degree requires one calorie of energy. Anyone want to guess how many grams of water our oceans represent? That is a lot of energy and as we all know our weather patterns are altered by ocean temperatures. It has always been a balancing act between energy from the sun being absorbed vs reflected. The more greenhouse gases released, the more energy absorbed and less reflected.

And when I worked down in the pit for most of my Navy career, seawater intake temperatures were taken in every engine room, every hour of every day. The warmest I remember was in the Persian Gulf at 95 degrees Fahrenheit. That doesn't sound bad to most, but any marine engineer knows that seawater is what's used to cool and condense the steam that is generated by the boilers or by the secondary loop in reactors...and that means it gets really warm down in the pit.
 
Are you completely aware of everything I have seen...and NOT seen? If not, then how can you possibly judge whether I'm telling the truth as to what I have or have not seen?

What words of jack's have you seen that I haven't?
 
And when I worked down in the pit for most of my Navy career, seawater intake temperatures were taken in every engine room, every hour of every day. The warmest I remember was in the Persian Gulf at 95 degrees Fahrenheit. That doesn't sound bad to most, but any marine engineer knows that seawater is what's used to cool and condense the steam that is generated by the boilers or by the secondary loop in reactors...and that means it gets really warm down in the pit.
LOL...

Now I understand you better. It's the radiation.

LOL... joking. I have a coworker who worked the reactor on a submarine.
 
What words of jack's have you seen that I haven't?

He linked to what apparently was his favorite reference at the time and said how this scientist had shown that cosmic rays were almost wholly responsible for all climactic changes in Earth's history, and went into great detail trying to prove how the record of cosmic ray bombardment correlated with our planet's climactic record. This was some time ago, maybe early this year, maybe last year, but while I have a rotten memory, I do tend to remember things written by those whom I respect, when those things they write seem to be wildly speculative at best.
 
LOL...

Now I understand you better. It's the radiation.

LOL... joking. I have a coworker who worked the reactor on a submarine.

I wasn't a nuke - I flunked out of nuc school after finding out the hard way that a rural Mississippi education does not prepare one for such a high-intensity school. Back in the 90's I finished three years of computer science in 18 months, but that was nowhere near as difficult and challenging as nuc school was.

But I've worked in propulsion engineering on both conventional and nuclear-powered ships, and it's my time on the USS Abraham Lincoln (Dubya, stay the hell off my ship!) that made me a strong supporter of nuclear power - we normally got more radiation from the fluorescent lights than from the reactor. What's more, after studying the design of the plant, the safeguards were such that a meltdown was next to impossible, that even if the watch team got together and tried to cause a meltdown, I don't think they could succeed without breaking into the reactor vessel itself.

So that's why as progressive as I am, I'm still a strong supporter of nuclear power.
 
He linked to what apparently was his favorite reference at the time and said how this scientist had shown that cosmic rays were almost wholly responsible for all climactic changes in Earth's history, and went into great detail trying to prove how the record of cosmic ray bombardment correlated with our planet's climactic record. This was some time ago, maybe early this year, maybe last year, but while I have a rotten memory, I do tend to remember things written by those whom I respect, when those things they write seem to be wildly speculative at best.

I know Jack likes the cosmic ray angle. However, when you get intellectually dishonest in claiming he sees it as THE CAUSE...

It is only part of the equation. Jack doesn't claim it's the only cause.

I haven't taken a stand on cosmic rays. There is merit to the research in that area, but I haven't read enough yet on the topic for me to assign a significance to it. I believe the greatest change we see from cosmic rays have to do with the changing solar and earth magnetic fields, and the energy levels of the ionosphere from the solar winds.

The theory is sound about cosmic rays. just not how significant they are. That's why research is continuing on that topic. To see just how relevant they may be. There is a correlation to observation. But then, again, other factors change in unison with the cosmic rays making it to our atmosphere.

I think what bothers me the most, if your ankle-biter relentless attack on this issue. What you are doing leads me to believe that you have no sound arguments, so you are attacking the messenger instead. You are deflecting away from the debate, going off into useless tangents.

Are you going to be the next I place on IGNORE?
 
I wasn't a nuke - I flunked out of nuc school after finding out the hard way that a rural Mississippi education does not prepare one for such a high-intensity school. Back in the 90's I finished three years of computer science in 18 months, but that was nowhere near as difficult and challenging as nuc school was.

But I've worked in propulsion engineering on both conventional and nuclear-powered ships, and it's my time on the USS Abraham Lincoln (Dubya, stay the hell off my ship!) that made me a strong supporter of nuclear power - we normally got more radiation from the fluorescent lights than from the reactor. What's more, after studying the design of the plant, the safeguards were such that a meltdown was next to impossible, that even if the watch team got together and tried to cause a meltdown, I don't think they could succeed without breaking into the reactor vessel itself.

So that's why as progressive as I am, I'm still a strong supporter of nuclear power.
How did it feel when your mission was completed, sailing back to port?
 
How did it feel when your mission was completed, sailing back to port?

The first time, towards the end of a nine-month cruise back in 83, we pulled into Hawaii, and I was a bit emotional...but I looked forward most to having some fresh milk, not having had any since about eight months earlier. But the most emotional one was my last one, because the day before we were to pull into San Diego at the end of the cruise, my last full day on deployment in my career, something hit me on the head - to this day I don't know what - and the next thing I know I'm waking up in Balboa hospital with 140-odd stitches and staples in my scalp. That was in early 2001, and the next few days with my wife were emotional indeed.
 
I know Jack likes the cosmic ray angle. However, when you get intellectually dishonest in claiming he sees it as THE CAUSE...

It is only part of the equation. Jack doesn't claim it's the only cause.

I haven't taken a stand on cosmic rays. There is merit to the research in that area, but I haven't read enough yet on the topic for me to assign a significance to it. I believe the greatest change we see from cosmic rays have to do with the changing solar and earth magnetic fields, and the energy levels of the ionosphere from the solar winds.

The theory is sound about cosmic rays. just not how significant they are. That's why research is continuing on that topic. To see just how relevant they may be. There is a correlation to observation. But then, again, other factors change in unison with the cosmic rays making it to our atmosphere.

I think what bothers me the most, if your ankle-biter relentless attack on this issue. What you are doing leads me to believe that you have no sound arguments, so you are attacking the messenger instead. You are deflecting away from the debate, going off into useless tangents.

Are you going to be the next I place on IGNORE?

1. I know what Jack was implying. He never said it was the ONLY thing, but was strongly implying that it was by far the major factor in climate change throughout Earth's history.

2. Perhaps you should consider what the word "lying" means - it refers to "a statement that one knows is false, that is made with intent to deceive". If you're going to call me a liar, then you first need to prove to YOURSELF that I know that a statement that I made was false, and then you need to show that I used that false statement with intent to deceive. In other words, the bar for determining whether one is a liar is and should be high indeed. I am often wrong (and I am grateful indeed when someone shows me I am wrong, for that means he or she is helping me remove some of my ignorance), but I don't lie. That's one thing I'm grateful for when it comes to the anonymity of the internet - it gives me the freedom to say what I truly believe. Of course, as far as you know, all that could be a lie. All I can tell you in return is that over the years, I've found that the more one tells the truth, the better one is able to discern the ring of truth when he hears it.

3. If you want to put me on your 'ignore' list, that's up to you.
 
1. I know what Jack was implying. He never said it was the ONLY thing, but was strongly implying that it was by far the major factor in climate change throughout Earth's history.

2. Perhaps you should consider what the word "lying" means - it refers to "a statement that one knows is false, that is made with intent to deceive". If you're going to call me a liar, then you first need to prove to YOURSELF that I know that a statement that I made was false, and then you need to show that I used that false statement with intent to deceive. In other words, the bar for determining whether one is a liar is and should be high indeed. I am often wrong (and I am grateful indeed when someone shows me I am wrong, for that means he or she is helping me remove some of my ignorance), but I don't lie. That's one thing I'm grateful for when it comes to the anonymity of the internet - it gives me the freedom to say what I truly believe. Of course, as far as you know, all that could be a lie. All I can tell you in return is that over the years, I've found that the more one tells the truth, the better one is able to discern the ring of truth when he hears it.

3. If you want to put me on your 'ignore' list, that's up to you.

Aren't you being a bit like an ankle-biter right now? haven't you spoke your mind? Why must you remain relentless?

It's getting rather annoying.
 
Aren't you being a bit like an ankle-biter right now? haven't you spoke your mind? Why must you remain relentless?

It's getting rather annoying.

You called me a liar, and are not able to show any proof whatsoever of me lying. Someone needed to point out to you the difference between "lying" and simply "being wrong"...so I decided to help you out with understanding that difference.
 
And when I worked down in the pit for most of my Navy career, seawater intake temperatures were taken in every engine room, every hour of every day. The warmest I remember was in the Persian Gulf at 95 degrees Fahrenheit. That doesn't sound bad to most, but any marine engineer knows that seawater is what's used to cool and condense the steam that is generated by the boilers or by the secondary loop in reactors...and that means it gets really warm down in the pit.

"Really warm" I'm sure is an understatement. Being on the bridge my work environment was a bit more pleasant. While at the Academy I did take a lot of the engineering classes so have at least a small understanding of your area. I only served on one steam turbine ship, all others were diesel. Since seawater is used in the heat exchanger for the compressed intake charge, the cooler the water the more power the diesel could produced because the air intake charge is more dense.
 
You called me a liar, and are not able to show any proof whatsoever of me lying. Someone needed to point out to you the difference between "lying" and simply "being wrong"...so I decided to help you out with understanding that difference.

I understand the definition of a lie.

Maybe you should practice what you preach about it then, before chastising others about it.
 
"Really warm" I'm sure is an understatement. Being on the bridge my work environment was a bit more pleasant. While at the Academy I did take a lot of the engineering classes so have at least a small understanding of your area. I only served on one steam turbine ship, all others were diesel. Since seawater is used in the heat exchanger for the compressed intake charge, the cooler the water the more power the diesel could produced because the air intake charge is more dense.

That's very true - whether conventional or nuclear, our plants were always more efficient in cooler water. I once came up with a design to get rid of the main condenser by essentially using a "pure water eductor" to take the exhausted steam from a low-pressure environment to a high-pressure environment where the steam would automatically condense, but I'm not sure that it would have worked. The design did get a laugh from the boiler techs, but hey - I was just trying to find a way to have a more efficient power plant.
 
I understand the definition of a lie.

Maybe you should practice what you preach about it then, before chastising others about it.

Would you care to show me a time when I accused someone of being a liar? I have once, rather recently...I can't remember exactly where it was, but it did meet the strictures I listed earlier. Other than that one time, I don't think I've called anyone a liar on this or any other political forum. If you cannot do so, then you have no cause to chastise me for chastising others about it, do you?
 
Did you intend to post a link that disproves your claim?
Just pointing out that while the sea has been warming for over a century, the same pause appears in the NOAA
sea surface records, as appears in all of the land data sets.
 
That's very true - whether conventional or nuclear, our plants were always more efficient in cooler water. I once came up with a design to get rid of the main condenser by essentially using a "pure water eductor" to take the exhausted steam from a low-pressure environment to a high-pressure environment where the steam would automatically condense, but I'm not sure that it would have worked. The design did get a laugh from the boiler techs, but hey - I was just trying to find a way to have a more efficient power plant.

They shouldn't have laughed. The idea of changing an environment for a desired result is what gives us potable water on our ships that are diesel powered. The cooling water is only 185 degrees F and as such most would think isn't usable for anything. However that same 185 degrees in a structured steel box that has been pulled into a vacuum will boil, and presto you have an evap water maker. Keep your thoughts coming.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom