Climatologists Claim They Know the Future

TerryRC wrote:Well now, iffen you want to call "shuttin er down" or "slowing/stoppin der flow" the same thing as "affecting its ability to carry heat" ...... go for it big boy.

The current slows or fails because of the freshwater. If it doesn't flow, it can't carry heat very well, can it?

Can you dispute that?

WHAT THE HELL IS IT that you don't understand about the simple fact that ......

In the North Atlantic Ocean, the water becomes so dense that it begins to sink down through less salty and less dense water.

Get off of your "Idiot Trip". Your claim about "freshwater" shutting down the Gulf Stream is based on a predicted Scientific possibility that if there was a substantial amount of "meltwater" to flow into the North Atlantic from ground based icepack or glaciers that it would dilute the above noted "dense water" sufficiently enough to prevent it from "sinking" and thus the Gulf Stream would quit flowing.

.

Get off of your "Idiot Trip". Your claim about "freshwater" shutting down the Gulf Stream is based on a predicted Scientific possibility that if there was a substantial amount of "meltwater" to flow into the North Atlantic from ground based icepack or glaciers that it would dilute the above noted "dense water" sufficiently enough to prevent it from "sinking" and thus the Gulf Stream would quit flowing.

Arctic ice caps, also. The diluted stream can't carry heat as readily.

It is obvious from your criticism you don't understand and you didn't read the link.

I'd rather be seen as an idiot than a close-minded curmudgeon.

The diluted stream can't carry heat as readily.

YADA, YADA, we know, .....

The boiling point of fresh water is 100 degrees C and the boiling point of salt water is 103.7 degrees C.

Something "less readily" than 3.7 degrees, right?

YADA, YADA, we know, .....

The boiling point of fresh water is 100 degrees C and the boiling point of salt water is 103.7 degrees C.

Something "less readily" than 3.7 degrees, right?

Can't dispute the well known fact that the Gulf Stream DOES move heat to N. Europe, S. Greenland and the Grand Banks and that anything that disrupts that current affects the rate at which it can move heat, can you...

There are other factors involved than a simple difference in boiling points. I think you know that.

The diluted stream can't carry heat as readily

So tell me oh wise one, given two streams of seawater whose temperatures are less than the boiling point, ....... just how many less calories of heat can a diluted stream of seawater carry than can an undiluted stream of seawater?

Are you trying to convince the clueless and gullible that the Specific Heat Capacity of saltwater changes relative to the flow rate that said stream of water is moving or being moved?

You neglect to address the volume and flow rates of the Gulf as opposed to the surrounding waters.

It is more than the simple difference in temperature carrying capacity between salt and fresh water that you tried to make it out to be, Sammy.

Just how many less calories of heat can a diluted stream of seawater carry than can an undiluted stream of seawater?

It won't carry much if it stops moving, will it.

Let's try this, TerryRC. For the cities of London, New York City, Chicago, and Johannesberg, what will we expect if man caused global warming is true?

It occurs to me, of course, that there is global warming and cooling all the time, so what we are really talking about is catastrophic global warming. Obviously SOMETHING is always happening to the earth in various places (and in general), so there will forever be evidence for whatever argument you care to make.

I don't hesitate but to call myself ignorant of such matters; what I'd like to know is why everything becomes proof of global warming, while as of yet no one on the AGW side has been willing to tell me what kinds of evidence would falsify the AGW hypothesis. AGW has become a way to explain everything, and as a result, really explains nothing.

Let's try this, TerryRC. For the cities of London, New York City, Chicago, and Johannesberg, what will we expect if man caused global warming is true?

I don't know. I'm not an expert.

science daily

I think their predictions may be extreme. Then again, a serious storm surge for a city like NYC would be a real show-stopper.

AGW has become a way to explain everything, and as a result, really explains nothing.

If you say so. Most would say, "... if it walks like a duck...".

As far as I am concerned, you can leave the "A" off of the AGW. I don't know as though people are the root cause. I feel that we have made it worse, though.

Anyway, I'm a biologist, of sorts. I look particularly at small things, particularly arthropods. I see trends, world-wide, in populations of those critters that are most simply and logically explained by rapid global climate change.

Outside of that, I am less knowledgeable.

I appreciate that, TerryRC, and in my rush to be a polemicist:) I neglect that we may well agree. I have no reason to deny that the globe's climate is changing and that man isn't helping.

I would like, however, to see real predictions based on the present assertions. The AGW crowd is quick to cite ANY weather abnormality as "proof" of AGW. Even the Cleveland Museum of Natural History hosted a photographic exhibit dedicated to man made global warming, which included destruction from Hurricane Katrina.

If indeed the globe's warming is catastrophic, I'd like to know what they EXPECT to see. Also, I would be far more sympathetic if these people would admit that there would be some benefit to some people if the globe were to be warming. That would not be a fatal concession on their part at all, but rather would show that they are interested in science rather than winning an argument.