Greenman

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:...Like all racists litebeer wants to pretend that it's someone else that's the racist.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Gas is not more expensive, the dollar has crashed that far. Gas is actually pretty cheap right now, when compared to other commodities.

The changes made in engine design had little to do with the Clean Air Act. EGR systems, which were already being developed at the time BEFORE the Clean Air Act, did most of the contribution to removing smog from our cities. That system consists of a piece of plumbing running from the exhaust to the induction system and a simple reed valve. It's about as simple a system as you could ask for.

The catalytic converters WERE required by the Clean Air Act. They don't reduce pollution. They convert one form of pollution into another. I call them pollution to pollution converters.

The FADEC engines that cars use today were not required by the Clean Air Act. That came about simply as a cheaper and more precise way to control the engine. Jet aircraft had been using FADEC systems since the 60's. The cheap microcontroller made it practical for cars. FADEC produces are more precise burn, wasting less fuel. Fuel economy is already a marketing point. They didn't need a government law for that!

The ethanol in gas was not part of the Act, but from a later implementation by fiat by the EPA.

You should learn something about relativity. If I went back to work today I would make 30% less than as a lower level engineer back in 2008.

Wake wrote:
Gas in the meantime went all over the place because of the Clean Air Act.

Wake wrote:
California was the hardest hit as usual because they enacted highly restrictive regulations that weren't necessary in any other state.

Wake wrote:
But STILL on 11/24/2008 gas was $1.70 or roughly half of what it is today. In Arizona gas is presently less than $2.50/gal at the company gas stations. At cut rate places it can hit as low as $1.50.

Wake wrote:
Methanol decreases mileage about 10% while generating more pollutants.

Wake wrote:
Why did that ever come along except to hand out money to corn farmers?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Despite gov regs, here's what still amazes me...
They can go to the other side of the globe, stick a drill bit in the ground, extract the oil, send back to our side of the globe, refine it into something that packs amazing power, send it 2,000 miles across the country to my little small town gas station, for only $2.25 a gallon.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Despite gov regs, here's what still amazes me...
They can go to the other side of the globe, stick a drill bit in the ground, extract the oil, send back to our side of the globe, refine it into something that packs amazing power, send it 2,000 miles across the country to my little small town gas station, for only $2.25 a gallon.

I once filled the tank of my '49 Pontiac for $0.10/gal.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh dude, you are gettin old!

Best I could do was 89 cents in high school...then Iraq invaded Kuwait. Went up to 1.40. I was so hacked off!

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed: I remember the ten cents a gallon too. I even have the 'old man' beard to match!

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.

Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.

Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.

Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.

Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.

Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.

Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?

Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.

Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.

Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.

Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't know what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.

Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, the collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.

Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.

Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.

Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.

Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.

Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?

Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.

Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.

Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.

Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't know what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.

Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, the collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.

Whacko as they come. photosynthesis occurs with light in the green and blue. The energy in red light and below is insufficient to trigger photosynthesis. All of the energy in the Sunlight is filtered out BECAUSE of photosynthesis in the top 100 meters.

Wake wrote:
I'm the one with a patent on ocean current power generation and you're the one telling me I don't know anything about it. Real bright.

Wake wrote:
Gibralter isn't practical because the only area shallow enough to install and service such a generator is directly on top of a tectonic plate.

Wake wrote:
Do you think that you're so intelligent and everyone else in the world is so dumb?

Wake wrote:
Several times here I have mentioned that I have owned many sailboats, am a life member of the second oldest yacht club in the San Francisco area and have raced very large ocean racing sailboats up and down the Pacific Coast. Apparently you are having increasing memory problems.

Wake wrote:
Apparently you don't seem to even listen to yourself. Increased heating via absorption of visible light and heating in water via conduction causes convection.

Wake wrote:
That means that warm water is at and near the upper layers and not deep as you seem to think.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you cease and decease while you're still only two miles behind.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.

Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.

Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.

Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.

Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.

Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?

Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.

Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.

Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.

Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't know what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.

Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, the collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.

Whacko as they come. photosynthesis occurs with light in the green and blue. The energy in red light and below is insufficient to trigger photosynthesis. All of the energy in the Sunlight is filtered out BECAUSE of photosynthesis in the top 100 meters.

Sunlight isn't filtered out in 100 meters. Indeed, the colors that travel deepest in ocean water is green and blue, red is filtered out first. So there goes that theory of yours. Turns out that people who actually understand photosynthesis (not you) already know that green light is not used. Photosynthesis occurs with blue and red light. Green is reflected away (which is why plants appear green!).

Wake wrote:
I'm the one with a patent on ocean current power generation and you're the one telling me I don't know anything about it. Real bright.

That's right. I don't believe your claim of a patent. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums. You do not seem to understand much about power plants.

Wake wrote:
Gibralter isn't practical because the only area shallow enough to install and service such a generator is directly on top of a tectonic plate.

Oooooh. On top of a tectonic plate, eh? That means every power station in the world is at risk. They are ALL built on top of tectonic plates! YOU are walking on top of a tectonic plate!

Wake wrote:
Do you think that you're so intelligent and everyone else in the world is so dumb?

No, you're just being dumb.

Wake wrote:
Several times here I have mentioned that I have owned many sailboats, am a life member of the second oldest yacht club in the San Francisco area and have raced very large ocean racing sailboats up and down the Pacific Coast. Apparently you are having increasing memory problems.

Again, I don't believe you. Your statements indicate you have little experience with sailing at all.

Wake wrote:
Apparently you don't seem to even listen to yourself. Increased heating via absorption of visible light and heating in water via conduction causes convection.

Yup. Just like any fluid.

Wake wrote:
That means that warm water is at and near the upper layers and not deep as you seem to think.

It is why warm water stays near the top, but it DOES go down to 1200 meters deep for some warm currents, including the Gulf Stream.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you cease and decease while you're still only two miles behind.

I suggest you stop showing everyone how illiterate and pompous you are and look up:

1) temperature profile of the ocean, including the temperature profile of the Gulf Stream.
2) Absorption profile of ocean water. These studies were done in Hawaii and other places.
3) Ocean currents and their causes.
4) Hydrodynamics.
5) Photosynthesis.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.

Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.

Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.

Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.

Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.

Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?https://www.google.com/search?q=weather+seattle+washington&oq=weather+seattle+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6255j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.

Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.

Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.

Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't knowhttps://www.google.com/search?q=weather+seattle+washington&oq=weather+seattle+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6255j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.

Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, thehttps://www.google.com/search?q=weather+seattle+washington&oq=weather+seattle+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6255j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.

Whacko as they come. photosynthesis occurs with light in the green and blue. The energy in red light and below is insufficient to trigger photosynthesis. All of the energy in the Sunlight is filtered out BECAUSE of photosynthesis in the top 100 meters.

Sunlight isn't filtered out in 100 meters. Indeed, the colors that travel deepest in ocean water is green and blue, red is filtered out first. So there goes that theory of yours. Turns out that people who actually understand photosynthesis (not you) already know that green light is not used. Photosynthesis occurs with blue and red light. Green is reflected away (which is why plants appear green!).

Wake wrote:
I'm the one with a patent on ocean current power generation and you're the one telling me I don't know anything about it. Real bright.

That's right. I don't believe your claim of a patent. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums. You do not seem to understand much about power plants.

Wake wrote:
Gibralter isn't practical because the only area shallow enough to install and service such a generator is directly on top of a tectonic plate.

Oooooh. On top of a tectonic plate, eh? That means every power station in the world is at risk. They are ALL built on top of tectonic plates! YOU are walking on top of a tectonic plate!

Wake wrote:
Do you think that you're so intelligent and everyone else in the world is so dumb?

No, you're just being dumb.

Wake wrote:
Several times here I have mentioned that I have owned many sailboats, am a life member of the second oldest yacht club in the San Francisco area and have raced very large ocean racing sailboats up and down the Pacific Coast. Apparently you are having increasing memory problems.

Again, I don't believe you. Your statements indicate you have little experience with sailing at all.

Wake wrote:
Apparently you don't seem to even listen to yourself. Increased heating via absorption of visible light and heating in water via conduction causes convection.

Yup. Just like any fluid.

Wake wrote:
That means that warm water is at and near the upper layers and not deep as you seem to think.

It is why warm water stays near the top, but it DOES go down to 1200 meters deep for some warm currents, including the Gulf Stream.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you cease and decease while you're still only two miles behind.

I suggest you stop showing everyone how illiterate and pompous you are and look up:

1) temperature profile of the ocean, including the temperature profile of the Gulf Stream.
2) Absorption profile of ocean water. These studies were done in Hawaii and other places.
3) Ocean currents and their causes.
4) Hydrodynamics.
5) Photosynthesis.

I know very well oceanography.

Wake wrote:
The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

Wake wrote:
I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

Wake wrote:

I know very well oceanography. The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

You can all sit around and take that poll that shows that you morons think that a public popularity poll will surely answer all of the questions about AGW.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

I know very well oceanography. The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

You can all sit around and take that poll that shows that you morons think that a public popularity poll will surely answer all of the questions about AGW.

Sounds like Wake Me Up sacrificed himself. Too bad, because the Climate gods aren't interested in sacrificial retards. They prefer to munch on the good unblemished brains.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

I know very well oceanography. The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

You can all sit around and take that poll that shows that you morons think that a public popularity poll will surely answer all of the questions about AGW.

Sounds like Wake Me Up sacrificed himself. Too bad, because the Climate gods aren't interested in sacrificial retards. They prefer to munch on the good unblemished brains.

So you aren't even bright enough to follow a conversation? That's no surprise.

GreenMan wrote:

No problem following the conversation, you idiot. Was commenting on you getting pissed off and leaving. Having a good laugh, actually.

What's your beef guy? You come off like some kind of know it all, billy bad ass, idiot, all rolled into one. What's up with that? Do you do that shit on purpose, or does it just come natural?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

No problem following the conversation, you idiot. Was commenting on you getting pissed off and leaving. Having a good laugh, actually.

What's your beef guy? You come off like some kind of know it all, billy bad ass, idiot, all rolled into one. What's up with that? Do you do that shit on purpose, or does it just come natural?

And yet another demonstration that you're a high school dope. Go ask your fellow classmates what to say next.

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.

You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.

Is it? I was unaware of that particular claim. I do know the warm waters of the Gulf Stream can be found 1200m deep.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.

Is it? I was unaware of that particular claim. I do know the warm waters of the Gulf Stream can be found 1200m deep.

Yes, but only in a few places. The general ocean stays at a very constant temperature due to the physics of how the density of water changes with temperature. It is very strange compaired to other materials.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.

Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.

True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.

The oceans are extremely strange. There is a break at something like 200 meters. Below that is minimal convection. Dead plant and animal matter from above that level falls down to the great depths of the oceans and feeds animals and bacteria down there in the total absence of light. These areas do not have currents and as I said, they do not have convection. They are an almost stone like layering of increasing density and nearly equal temperature.

I used to dive and so took at interest in this. Off of Monterey, Ca, there is a wall that falls into the deeps abruptly. At least 200 feet. We would hunt abalone along this wall and try not to go any deeper than 60 feet. Otherwise you'd have to be careful to decompress on the way up.

Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.

In the great depths of the oceans any currents are almost always driven by tectonic activity.

Wake wrote:
As I said, the water vary in temperature below 1000 meters only by fractions of a degree per 1000 meters.

Wake wrote:
This layering is just like the stones you see on cliff faces.

Wake wrote:
The animal life in the great depths are not the sort of thing that moves around nor can most of them stand any current at all.

Wake wrote:
Some look like plants since they must gather their food sources sort of like gathering rain.

Wake wrote:
The slight currents that are there are colder water falling into the next deeper layer of water and this loses heat by the unlikely means of less rotting organic matter falling through it.

Wake wrote:
Man hasn't even a small understanding of the oceans which cover 60% of the Earth let alone the other 10% covered by freshwater.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.

In the great depths of the oceans any currents are almost always driven by tectonic activity.

Not true. Most are counter currents from some other current elsewhere.

Wake wrote:
As I said, the water vary in temperature below 1000 meters only by fractions of a degree per 1000 meters.

You can get some pretty different temperatures as you descend through the depths. Submarines use this to hide themselves. Sonar is masked by these temperature differences. Whales use it to communicate to their buddies far away like using a waveguide.

Wake wrote:
This layering is just like the stones you see on cliff faces.

You're in California. Have you even looked at some of your cliff faces??

Wake wrote:
The animal life in the great depths are not the sort of thing that moves around nor can most of them stand any current at all.

They can stand the current. It's how many of them move from place to place.

Wake wrote:
Some look like plants since they must gather their food sources sort of like gathering rain.

When they are anchored, yes.

Wake wrote:
The slight currents that are there are colder water falling into the next deeper layer of water and this loses heat by the unlikely means of less rotting organic matter falling through it.

This tends to happen near the shore. Probably why you figure it happens out across the ocean as well.

Wake wrote:
Man hasn't even a small understanding of the oceans which cover 60% of the Earth let alone the other 10% covered by freshwater.

We actually know a lot. A few things 'global warming' related:

We know what causes currents and where the larger ones are. We sail by them...even engine driven ships (saves fuel). We know how deep they go. We know where the major counter currents are.

We know what causes the El Nino and Las Nina cycles. It is a very minor shift in Pacific equatorial currents.

We know how shellfish get the carbon they need for their shells. Turns out we NEED that carbon dioxide in the water for them!

We know what happens to sea level when an iceberg melts (Nothing!).

We know the relative changes in sea level due to storms and other barometric and temperature changes to a high degree of accuracy. We do not know the absolute average sea level.

We know what colors of light penetrate most deeply into seawater (at least in Hawaii). We know what happens when that light is absorbed by seawater (conversion to thermal and chemical energy).

We know that colder water is capable of storing more carbon dioxide, as long as it remains liquid. We know that ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. We know that only a very small amount of carbon dioxide converts to carbonic acid in water (the rest remains dissolved CO2). We also know that carbonic acid is absolutely necessary for the survival of shellfish.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.

In the great depths of the oceans any currents are almost always driven by tectonic activity.

Not true. Most are counter currents from some other current elsewhere.

Wake wrote:
As I said, the water vary in temperature below 1000 meters only by fractions of a degree per 1000 meters.

You can get some pretty different temperatures as you descend through the depths. Submarines use this to hide themselves. Sonar is masked by these temperature differences. Whales use it to communicate to their buddies far away like using a waveguide.

Wake wrote:
This layering is just like the stones you see on cliff faces.

You're in California. Have you even looked at some of your cliff faces??

Wake wrote:
The animal life in the great depths are not the sort of thing that moves around nor can most of them stand any current at all.

They can stand the current. It's how many of them move from place to place.

Wake wrote:
Some look like plants since they must gather their food sources sort of like gathering rain.

When they are anchored, yes.

Wake wrote:
The slight currents that are there are colder water falling into the next deeper layer of water and this loses heat by the unlikely means of less rotting organic matter falling through it.

This tends to happen near the shore. Probably why you figure it happens out across the ocean as well.

Wake wrote:
Man hasn't even a small understanding of the oceans which cover 60% of the Earth let alone the other 10% covered by freshwater.

We actually know a lot. A few things 'global warming' related:

We know what causes currents and where the larger ones are. We sail by them...even engine driven ships (saves fuel). We know how deep they go. We know where the major counter currents are.

We know what causes the El Nino and Las Nina cycles. It is a very minor shift in Pacific equatorial currents.

We know how shellfish get the carbon they need for their shells. Turns out we NEED that carbon dioxide in the water for them!

We know what happens to sea level when an iceberg melts (Nothing!).

We know the relative changes in sea level due to storms and other barometric and temperature changes to a high degree of accuracy. We do not know the absolute average sea level.

We know what colors of light penetrate most deeply into seawater (at least in Hawaii). We know what happens when that light is absorbed by seawater (conversion to thermal and chemical energy).

We know that colder water is capable of storing more carbon dioxide, as long as it remains liquid. We know that ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. We know that only a very small amount of carbon dioxide converts to carbonic acid in water (the rest remains dissolved CO2). We also know that carbonic acid is absolutely necessary for the survival of shellfish.

You are unbelievable. Submarines hide in the depths?

Wake wrote:
The deepest driving military submarine can only dive something like 500 meters.

Wake wrote:
A beaked whale as found around the Galapagos is considered to be extremely peculiar because it can dive to 3,000 meters. This could only be a defensive mechanism and hardly any other whales go below 1,000 meters.

Wake wrote:
There is little to no light below 1200 meters let alone 12,000 meters of the great depths.

Wake wrote:
You know NOTHING about ocean currents.

Wake wrote:
Why are you pretending to?

Wake wrote:
Why are you arguing about this?

Wake wrote:
This is all a matter of common knowledge.

Wake wrote:
It is recorded in the encyclopedia for crying out loud.

Wake wrote:
Or do you believe them to be inaccurate as well?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.

You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.

Well now we know what happened to your mind.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.

You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.

Well now we know what happened to your mind.

And we can conclude that paint chips is what happened to yours.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.

You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.

Well now we know what happened to your mind.

And we can conclude that paint chips is what happened to yours.

What was that druggy? Dude that stuff you're smokin is like perfectly OK. Man it's even legal in many states. But most of us are laughing at you. No employer will keep you around for long.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.

I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.

You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.

Well now we know what happened to your mind.

And we can conclude that paint chips is what happened to yours.

What was that druggy? Dude that stuff you're smokin is like perfectly OK. Man it's even legal in many states. But most of us are laughing at you. No employer will keep you around for long.

Besides, smoking paint chips doesn't produce a high. It just might give you a good case of lead poisoning.