Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[LibertyBell]

12 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Classic. You did not respond to the point I made 3 times. Yes that makes me angry. You still have not responded. You are not here for a good faith discussion. I will repost it for you to give you yet another opportunity. And I will keep reposting it and not move on to another point until you have responded in good faith.

I'm angry because these guys give a pass to the fossil fuel cartel, which is the single most corrupt industry on the planet right now.  And that's saying a lot because pharma is right behind them.

 

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

ENSO doesn't increase OHC. By warming the ocean's surface, and thus radiating more heat to the atmosphere, OHC decreases during ENSO. 

ENSO is a slowing of the equatorial pacific mixing. Because the warm water isn't getting pushed into the deep oceans, the deep oceans cool and the upper oceans warm. The net effect is close to zero, with a gradual cooling as the heat trapped in the upper ocean gets radiated to the atmosphere, instead of mixed into the deep.

You're not thinking in terms of energy flows. Your mind is like "ENSO = hot". Well where did this heat come from?

 

Plus the ONI trend since the 1970s is essentially zero.

and he doesn't address WHY we've had stronger el ninos more recently, the fact is that studies have connected that to AGW also.

 

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, bdgwx said:

 

I trust models to predict the location and timing of solar eclipses.

I trust models to predict the behavior of drugs in my body.

I trust models to predict how solutions to engineering problems will behave before those solutions are implemented so that I don't waste time and money.

I trust models to produce temperature readings from RTDs and thermocouples.

I trust models to produce satellite images of clouds and water vapor.

I trust models to forecast hurricane track and intensities several days out.

I trust models to forecast severe weather outbreaks.

Everyone trusts scientific models and even bets their lives on them on a daily basis.

We calibrate our trust based on the ability of the model to explain and predict observations. Invoking a model is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to embrace because if you aren't invoking a scientific model then you're just guessing.

particularly when the models have been more conservative vs whats actually happening via sea level rise

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Life is good for you. Not for the millions of people whose displacement, starvation and/or death is directly related to climate change. This is a moral issue and you are here to troll and spread lies. I find that disgusting. Sorry if you don't like it. That's MY opinion.

Are you serious? Come on.  Millions of peoples are not dying due to climate change. That is a big stretch. Are you ok?

[LibertyBell]

5 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Are you serious? Come on.  Millions of peoples are not dying due to climate change. That is a big stretch. Are you ok?

life expectancy is being shortened because of dirty fossil fuels and air pollution, they are worse for health than tobacco smoking

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

As I've said (6 times now!!!) the ONI trend from 2003-2013 (post-Argo) is very negative. The OHC increase didn't slow down at all, even if you apply some bogus lag. OHC continued its persistent and rapid increase.

You cherry picked the data. 2013 was before the big 2016 El Nino. Plus the increase in OHC amounts of hundredths of a degree C. How is that a problem? You can't prove that it is related to CO2 increases.  The sun was the most active sunspot wise in a 1000 years during the late 20th century. It is NOT a coincidence that the sunspot minimum seen a few hundred years ago coincided with the Little Ice Age. Just like the warm up from the Dark Age cold period to the Medieval Warm period, warming could continue for a few hundred years in response to the late 20th grand solar maximum. So the warming today could be mostly natural. CO2 likely has a part but it is mostly natural warming because CO2 is a weak GHG.  The Sun drives our climate. And to believe that the LIA or MWP were local phenomena only shows a deep lack of understanding of fluid dynamics.  It is no surprise that climate scientists like Michael Mann, Andrew Desser, Gavin Schmidt and even James Hansen don't have degrees in atmospheric science.    

[blizzard1024]

8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

life expectancy is being shortened because of dirty fossil fuels and air pollution, they are worse for health than tobacco smoking

No life expectancy is cruelly short in the 3rd world where they don't have access to cheap energy. They use charcoal to heat and cook and die of emphysema and other lung illnesses in their 40s.  Plus, they destroy their local environments by cutting down all the trees. Have you seen Haiti? The environmental degradation is awful and it's because the people are so poor and do not have access to cheap affordable energy.  If we go to renewables when it is NOT cost effective, it will force much of the western world into a 3rd world hell. We then will destroy our planet. People desperate for survival will have to resort to wood burning and hunting native animals and birds for food again. Heck in Venezuela that is what is happening.  I would rather walk my dog, not eat him. 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

No life expectancy is cruelly short in the 3rd world where they don't have access to cheap energy. They use charcoal to heat and cook and die of emphysema and other lung illnesses in their 40s.  Plus, they destroy their local environments by cutting down all the trees. Have you seen Haiti? The environmental degradation is awful and it's because the people are so poor and do not have access to cheap affordable energy.  If we go to renewables when it is NOT cost effective, it will force much of the western world into a 3rd world hell. We then will destroy our planet. People desperate for survival will have to resort to wood burning and hunting native animals and birds for food again. Heck in Venezuela that is what is happening.  I would rather walk my dog, not eat him. 

renewable energy is well on its way to being cheaper and more cost effective.  Also, I dont know about you, but I'd rather not live in a country like India where the smog from dirty fuel powered cars is so bad that you need to wear an oxygen mask, and that was well before the pandemic hit.  People were suffering from breathing problems and headaches and even burning eyes.  It took the pandemic to hit to make air quality better.  Also the high asthma rates in urban areas have been clearly linked to higher pollution levels and lower air quality because of vehicles.  That's why Amazon and Uber are now switching to electric vehicles and why the MTA has switched to hybrid buses.

what you said about renewable energy being much more expensive may have been true maybe 20 years ago but is no longer the case and will be much cheaper than fossil fuels by 2030. which is another reason many large corporations are making the switch.  it's a win/win for them and for us.

 

[blizzard1024]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

renewable energy is well on its way to being cheaper and more cost effective.  Also, I dont know about you, but I'd rather not live in a country like India where the smog from dirty fuel powered cars is so bad that you need to wear an oxygen mask, and that was well before the pandemic hit.  People were suffering from breathing problems and headaches and even burning eyes.  It took the pandemic to hit to make air quality better.  Also the high asthma rates in urban areas have been clearly linked to higher pollution levels and lower air quality because of vehicles.  That's why Amazon and Uber are now switching to electric vehicles and why the MTA has switched to hybrid buses.

what you said about renewable energy being much more expensive may have been true maybe 20 years ago but is no longer the case and will be much cheaper than fossil fuels by 2030. which is another reason many large corporations are making the switch.  it's a win/win for them and for us.

I never said I was against renewables. When it is cost effective and if it doesn't harm the environment I am in. Eventually it is the way to go. Maybe by 2030? That would be awesome.  I would love to have an electric car. I would love to have solar panels and generate my own power. It would be cheaper. But it is too expensive right now. Look I do agree than CO2 increases does elevate global temperatures but not the doomsday scenarios that are parroted on this forum. But I think people also have forgotten that there is natural variability at play too. In the end I actually agree with all of you on renewable energy when it is cost effective. I happen to think it will take several decades but I am not an expert in this area and I do hope you are correct that it is cost effective quicker.  have a good day.  

[LibertyBell]

23 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

I never said I was against renewables. When it is cost effective and if it doesn't harm the environment I am in. Eventually it is the way to go. Maybe by 2030? That would be awesome.  I would love to have an electric car. I would love to have solar panels and generate my own power. It would be cheaper. But it is too expensive right now. Look I do agree than CO2 increases does elevate global temperatures but not the doomsday scenarios that are parroted on this forum. But I think people also have forgotten that there is natural variability at play too. In the end I actually agree with all of you on renewable energy when it is cost effective. I happen to think it will take several decades but I am not an expert in this area and I do hope you are correct that it is cost effective quicker.  have a good day.  

thats why my main arguments are based on air pollution and health, it is much easier to prove and generally agreed upon.  If any disagreed they stopped doing so when the pandemic hit and air quality greatly improved.  The climate connection has to be based on many decades of data and while many see it, it is harder to prove.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You cherry picked the data. 2013 was before the big 2016 El Nino. Plus the increase in OHC amounts of hundredths of a degree C. How is that a problem? You can't prove that it is related to CO2 increases.  The sun was the most active sunspot wise in a 1000 years during the late 20th century. It is NOT a coincidence that the sunspot minimum seen a few hundred years ago coincided with the Little Ice Age. Just like the warm up from the Dark Age cold period to the Medieval Warm period, warming could continue for a few hundred years in response to the late 20th grand solar maximum. So the warming today could be mostly natural. CO2 likely has a part but it is mostly natural warming because CO2 is a weak GHG.  The Sun drives our climate. And to believe that the LIA or MWP were local phenomena only shows a deep lack of understanding of fluid dynamics.  It is no surprise that climate scientists like Michael Mann, Andrew Desser, Gavin Schmidt and even James Hansen don't have degrees in atmospheric science.    

For starters, the climate system is much broader than the atmosphere. It includes the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere. 

Climate scientists are not meteorologists. They don’t engage in operational weather forecasting. Their work is much broader and it involves long timescales from past to future (projecting scenarios). It is research-intensive. Modeling, as is the case in an array of scientific and non-scientific fields, is increasingly important in climate science. 

Thus, taking into consideration the broad nature and high research focus of their work, it is not surprising to see the degrees possessed by climate scientists.

Andrew Dessler: Physics, chemistry

James Hansen: Physics, mathematics, astronomy

Michael Mann: Physics, applied mathematics, geology/geophysics

Gavin Schmidt (who specializes in modeling): Mathematics and applied mathematics

Jessica Tierney (paleoclimatology): Geology

[donsutherland1]

For context, here are the courses taught in Penn State’s atmospheric science major. I chose Penn State, because of its outstanding program:

http://www.met.psu.edu/academics/undergraduate-studies/options-within-the-major/atmospheric-science

Here’s the description of Meteo 436: “This course covers radiation and how it interacts with the atmosphere and earth's surface to drive motions in the atmosphere. The fundamentals of radiative transfer at the molecular level, including absorption, scattering, transmission, and emission of radiation by matter, are discussed and applied to help describe the earth's energy budget. Crucial to understanding these processes in the atmosphere are the interactions of radiation with water in the vapor, liquid, and solid states. Applications of radiative transfer to the understanding of seasons and of climate and climate change are presented as well.”

http://www.met.psu.edu/intranet/course-syllabi-repository/fall-2015-syllabi/meteo-436-syllabus

In short, atmospheric science is, in general, overly narrow for a broad climate science focus. It is highly specialized in its nature. The narrow but specialized focus is a big part of the reason that Penn State graduates excellent meteorologists.

[skierinvermont]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You cherry picked the data. 2013 was before the big 2016 El Nino. Plus the increase in OHC amounts of hundredths of a degree C. How is that a problem? You can't prove that it is related to CO2 increases.  The sun was the most active sunspot wise in a 1000 years during the late 20th century. It is NOT a coincidence that the sunspot minimum seen a few hundred years ago coincided with the Little Ice Age. Just like the warm up from the Dark Age cold period to the Medieval Warm period, warming could continue for a few hundred years in response to the late 20th grand solar maximum. So the warming today could be mostly natural. CO2 likely has a part but it is mostly natural warming because CO2 is a weak GHG.  The Sun drives our climate. And to believe that the LIA or MWP were local phenomena only shows a deep lack of understanding of fluid dynamics.  It is no surprise that climate scientists like Michael Mann, Andrew Desser, Gavin Schmidt and even James Hansen don't have degrees in atmospheric science.    

As I've explained 8 times now, if ENSO causes long term changes in OHC, we can test that by picking periods where ENSO went up and seeing if OHC went up. We can also test it by picking periods where ENSO went down and seeing if OHC went down. You have deliberately avoided picking periods where ENSO went down. For your 'hypothesis' to work it should be consistent with data - both up and down periods of ENSO. It only takes one example to disprove a hypothesis. Examples that are consistent don't prove the hypothesis, they only help 'corroborate' it. This is how the scientific method works.

ENSO went down dramatically form 2003-2013. OHC continued its rapid and relentless rise with zero slowdown or effect whatsoever. This disproves that ENSO affects OHC over the long-term. 

Your 'hypothesis' is inconsistent with multiple observations where ENSO went down for many years, and OHC continued rising rapidly with zero effect whatsoever. 

I've also explained 8 times now that OHC isn't about 'oh no the oceans are too hot for the fishies!' Measuring OHC is about measuring the planetary energy imbalance. 

I've stricken the rest of your post and will respond to it once you have addressed this above point.

I've explained this 8 times now. You have yet to respond to these points. You are a troll. If you continue to spew lies without anything to substantiate them I will suggest the moderators limit the number of posts you can make.

[skierinvermont]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I never said I was against renewables. When it is cost effective and if it doesn't harm the environment I am in. Eventually it is the way to go. Maybe by 2030? That would be awesome.  I would love to have an electric car. I would love to have solar panels and generate my own power. It would be cheaper. But it is too expensive right now. Look I do agree than CO2 increases does elevate global temperatures but not the doomsday scenarios that are parroted on this forum. But I think people also have forgotten that there is natural variability at play too. In the end I actually agree with all of you on renewable energy when it is cost effective. I happen to think it will take several decades but I am not an expert in this area and I do hope you are correct that it is cost effective quicker.  have a good day.  

This is a right-wing political lie.

Wind is cheaper than coal which is why the free market has adopted it so readily the last 10 years. It is the primary source of new power in the United States over the last decade (roughly tied with natural gas).

Electric cars and hybrids are cheaper than gas cars for consumers who drive more than 10,000-15,000 miles per year.

Emissions control devices on gas vehicles are dirt cheap.

I've already pointed this out. And yet you repeat the same lie. You are a troll and should have your posting limited. This is a forum for science and facts not politics and lies.

[skierinvermont]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

No life expectancy is cruelly short in the 3rd world where they don't have access to cheap energy. They use charcoal to heat and cook and die of emphysema and other lung illnesses in their 40s.  Plus, they destroy their local environments by cutting down all the trees. Have you seen Haiti? The environmental degradation is awful and it's because the people are so poor and do not have access to cheap affordable energy.  If we go to renewables when it is NOT cost effective, it will force much of the western world into a 3rd world hell. We then will destroy our planet. People desperate for survival will have to resort to wood burning and hunting native animals and birds for food again. Heck in Venezuela that is what is happening.  I would rather walk my dog, not eat him. 

100s of thousands of people in U.S. die from air pollution from cars and coal power every year. Many millions other suffer from asthma and cardiovascular problems which are inflamed during periods of stagnant poor air quality.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013004548

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(16)30023-8/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107002849

https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/health-effects-of-outdoor-air-pollution?source=post_page---------------------------

In China and India where the air is much worse, the death tolls are much higher. I have family in China and when the air is bad even young health people get headaches and cold symptoms and have to wear a mask. The elderly just have to stay inside with air purifiers. Which is why these countries are at least trying to clean up and are heavily adopting renewables and closing down dirty energy sources. And guess what? Their economies are stronger than ever and no doomsday widespread dog eating scenario. What nonsense right wing scare tactics.

[skierinvermont]

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used makes it worse, that's a major reason why there is a diabetes pandemic going on in minority communities.  More limbs have been lost to diabetes in the past 20 years than to being in the military.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad

Read up.

By the way artificial sweeteners have their own issues.  Diet soda consumption isn't a good idea either, it affects the gut biome negatively.

You might also be interested in this

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/books/salt-sugar-fat-by-michael-moss.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/23well.html

 

Shows why obesity and diabetes type 2 have risen so quickly in the past 20 years.  And a concurrent rise in insulin prices.....

 

 

I'm just saying if you got rid of corn syrup, they'd just go back to using sugar which would be just as bad. So I don't really see corn syrup as the problem. It's a whole society problem. The regulations on food labeling and advertising could be stronger. Public education could be improved so people understand exercise, diet, and food labeling. Economic disparities that lead to dysfunctional families and upbringings for children are also to blame.

[donsutherland1]

21 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

ENSO went down dramatically form 2003-2013. OHC continued its rapid and relentless rise with zero slowdown or effect whatsoever. This disproves that ENSO affects OHC over the long-term. 

This is a key point. ENSO does not explain either the observed ongoing warming or the larger issue of the earth’s persistent energy imbalance. Foster and Rahmstorf also found that when the effects of factors such as ENSO were removed from the global temperature record, the warming signal remained. In fact, it was stronger. There is no alternative physical basis to explain the warming being driven by increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing.

[blizzard1024]

32 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I've explained this 8 times now. You have yet to respond to these points. You are a troll. If you continue to spew lies without anything to substantiate them I will suggest the moderators limit the number of posts you can make.

You are the one that is way out of line and should be removed from this forum IMO. You can't have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't see it your way. Its your way or the highway. No place for a science forum. 

[blizzard1024]

36 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

You are a troll. If you continue to spew lies without anything to substantiate them I will suggest the moderators limit the number of posts you can make.

Keeping digging your hole deeper.   

[skierinvermont]

12 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You are the one that is way out of line and should be removed from this forum IMO. You can't have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't see it your way. Its your way or the highway. No place for a science forum. 

I responded to your points. You do not respond and repeat lies. That's called trolling. Anybody with half a brain can see you can't have a discussion on the merits so you just repeat more lies. Either respond to the points or stop posting. Nobody wants or needs more of your lies ripped from disinformation blogs. If we wanted those sorts of lies we know where to find them. If you have actual peer-reviewed science to share, please do so.

[blizzard1024]

6 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I responded to your points. You do not respond and repeat lies. That's called trolling. Anybody with half a brain can see you can't have a discussion on the merits so you just repeat more lies.

I am going to get you removed from this forum. You are a bully and are offending me. I never call you names. You basically assume I have half a brain? That is an insult and has no place on a forum like this. You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Please think about this before you are removed. You do have good points. You just don't tolerate others who see things differently. And then you insult them. 

[skierinvermont]

21 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

I am going to get you removed from this forum. You are a bully and are offending me. I never call you names. You basically assume I have half a brain? That is an insult and has no place on a forum like this. You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Please think about this before you are removed. You do have good points. You just don't tolerate others who see things differently. And then you insult them. 

I didn't say you have half a brain. Read it again. What I said was you need to stop posting lies and actually respond to the corrections people have made to your posts. I don't know how to say this any nicer. This is a forum for science and facts, not politics and lies from disinformation blogs.

[bluewave]

On 9/9/2020 at 7:50 AM, bluewave said:

The dust bowl was a localized rather than global event. The heat and drought were amplified by the poor land use practices which lead to the extreme soil erosion. The modern localized summer cooler high temperatures in the corn belt are also a result of farming practices. 
 

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/383102

Abstract

We provide a new and more complete analysis of the origins of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, one of the most severe environmental crises in North America in the twentieth century. Severe drought and wind erosion hit the Great Plains in 1930 and lasted through 1940. There were similar droughts in the 1950s and 1970s, but no comparable level of wind erosion. We explain why. The prevalence of small farms in the 1930s limited private solutions for controlling the downwind externalities associated with wind erosion. Drifting sand from unprotected fields damaged neighboring farms. Small farmers cultivated more of their land and were less likely to invest in erosion control than larger farmers. Soil conservation districts, established by the government after 1937, helped coordinate erosion control. This “unitized” solution for collective action is similar to that used in other natural resource/environmental settings.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather

The Great Plains of the central United States—the Corn Belt—is one of the most fertile regions on Earth, producing more than 10 billion bushels of corn each year. It’s also home to some mysterious weather: Whereas the rest of the world has warmed, the region’s summer temperatures have dropped as much as a full degree Celsius, and rainfall has increased up to 35%, the largest spike anywhere in the world. The culprit, according to a new study, isn’t greenhouse gas emissions or sea surface temperature—it’s the corn itself.

https://news.wisc.edu/irrigated-farming-in-wisconsins-central-sands-cools-the-regions-climate/

New research finds that irrigated farms within Wisconsin’s vegetable-growing Central Sands region significantly cool the local climate compared to nearby rain-fed farms or forests.

Irrigation dropped maximum temperatures by one to three degrees Fahrenheit on average while increasing minimum temperatures up to four degrees compared to unirrigated farms or forests. In all, irrigated farms experienced a three- to seven-degree smaller range in daily temperatures compared to other land uses. These effects persisted throughout the year.

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

 

 

 

Really interesting to see that show up right over the corn belt. Even if it's not 100% due to agriculture changes, still really interesting to see that cool spot right over them with warmth all around.

[bluewave]

39 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Really interesting to see that show up right over the corn belt. Even if it's not 100% due to agriculture changes, still really interesting to see that cool spot right over them with warmth all around.

It will be interesting to see how much longer this continues before it gets overpowered by warming.

But how does agriculture cause increased rainfall and decreased temperatures? The team suspects it has to do with photosynthesis, which leads to more water vapor in the air. When a plant’s pores, called stomata, open to allow carbon dioxide to enter, they simultaneously allow water to escape. This increases the amount of water going into the atmosphere and returning as rainfall. The cycle may continue as that rainwater eventually moves back into the atmosphere and causes more rainfall downwind from the original agricultural area.

Rong Fu, a climate scientist at UC Los Angeles, agrees with the team’s assessment. She also thinks that though human influence might be “greater than we realize,” this regional climate change is probably caused by many factors, including increased irrigation in the region.

“This squares with a lot of other evidence,” says Peter Huybers, a climate scientist at Harvard University, who calls the new study convincing. But he warns that such benefits may not last if greenhouse gas emissions eventually overpower the mitigating effect of agriculture.

Alter agrees, and says it’s unlikely that the large increases in U.S. crop production during the 20th century will continue. Other scientists have voiced concern that agricultural production could soon be reaching its limit in many parts of the world. 

“Food production is arguably what we’re more concerned about with climate change,” Mueller says. And understanding how agriculture and climate will continue to affect one another is crucial for developing projections for both climate and agricultural yields. “It’s not just greenhouse gasses that we need to be thinking about.

 

While the cooling effect of irrigation mitigates global climate change on the regional scale, climate models suggest that regional warming attributed to the global trend will eventually overcome the magnitude of mitigation offered by irrigated agriculture. Farmers, who are partially buffered for now from more extreme heat, would quickly face increasing stress in that scenario.

“Farmers in irrigated regions may experience more abrupt temperature increases that will cause them to have to adapt more quickly than other groups who are already coping with a warming climate,” says Kucharik. “It’s that timeframe in which people have time to adapt that concerns me.”

The current study is the first to definitively link irrigation in the Midwest U.S. to an altered regional climate. These results could improve weather and climate forecasts, help farmers plan better, and, the researchers hope, better prepare agricultural areas to deal with a warming climate when the irrigation effect is washed out.

“Irrigation is a land use with effects on climate in the Midwest, and we need to account for this in our climate models,” says Nocco.

[chubbs]

Per the paper below there is a slight reduction in OHC during El Nino due to heat loss from ocean to atmosphere.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331751587_Evolution_of_Ocean_Heat_Content_Related_to_ENSO

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I'm just saying if you got rid of corn syrup, they'd just go back to using sugar which would be just as bad. So I don't really see corn syrup as the problem. It's a whole society problem. The regulations on food labeling and advertising could be stronger. Public education could be improved so people understand exercise, diet, and food labeling. Economic disparities that lead to dysfunctional families and upbringings for children are also to blame.

Yes, all of the above...it's the only way to eradicate food deserts.  I avoid fast food and processed food like the plague it is and causes.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Really interesting to see that show up right over the corn belt. Even if it's not 100% due to agriculture changes, still really interesting to see that cool spot right over them with warmth all around.

the rapid increase in rainfall and dewpoints is very apparent here on the east coast too.  and it has had detrimental effects on my health in a very noticeable way (much longer allergy season, more biting pests, etc.)

 

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I am going to get you removed from this forum. You are a bully and are offending me. I never call you names. You basically assume I have half a brain? That is an insult and has no place on a forum like this. You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Please think about this before you are removed. You do have good points. You just don't tolerate others who see things differently. And then you insult them. 

skiier gets it both from the left and the right, I feel bad for him (sometimes).

 

but seriously, he was actually not being mean to you, if you want to see mean you should see him on the political forums lol

 

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Per the paper below there is a slight reduction in OHC during El Nino due to heat loss from ocean to atmosphere.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331751587_Evolution_of_Ocean_Heat_Content_Related_to_ENSO

Yeah he actually briefly acknowledged this point a page or two back. I thought he might actually be in for an objective discussion at that point. But then he continued on insisting that the very slight positive trend in ENSO from 1970-present has somehow increased OHC, despite the fact that over periods with very negative ENSO trends (2003-2013 for example, there are others) OHC just goes up without the slightest slowdown.

Then he brought up the possibility of some sort of lag. So I pointed out that no matter what lag you pick, there is never a decrease in OHC over an extended period when ENSO goes down. There's just no noticeable long-term effect at all between ENSO and OHC. The only thing there is as I pointed out before and like you are also point out, is a brief reduction in OHC as the ocean radiates heat to the atmosphere during +ENSO (which is actually the opposite of the effect he's hypothesizing, and also much more short-lived). It's pretty clear he's just trolling at this point.