[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Haggar

You're right about heat waves. In 1936 5000 people died from heat during the Oklahoma and surrounding area dust storms and heat. Don't see what the temperatures were in 1936.

Sorry If you thought I was directing this at you. It was directed at the posters that have made a definite judgment based upon studies that may or not be valid but seem to have made up their minds that only they are right. It would seem the "weather club" only has presentations that support the one theory. If I am wrong on this please correct me.

No problem. I don't know anything about the weather club, but from posts on TOTV it seems like it may be one sided.

I've been quite vocal about this topic, but my point has always been that we just don't know.

We do know that we are in a 4 1/2-million-year-old ice age marked by cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws of about 100,000 years. We do know that our current geological era is one of the, if not the coolest in the history of the Earth. We do know that these cycles have been repeating themselves many times, driven by the power of the sun, and changes in Earth's orbit around the sun and Earth's axis---all without the aid of human activity.

What we don't know is whether human activity of the past 200 years has put us on a new trajectory that is warming us faster than would have been otherwise without human contribution. And if it is, we don't know to what extent that will manifest itself---trivial or catastrophic.

That being said, there appears to be an agenda at work to not only push the catastrophic possibility, but also to make it appear much more imminent than is actually possible. Somebody quoted Stephen Hawkins as proposing that humans will be extinct in another 77 years. If so, it will be because we blew ourselves up or got wiped out by some super virus, but not because of climate change. It takes thousands of years to change the climate (not the weather).
Whenever there is the possibility of an agenda, there is usually a few people that stand to profit monetarily or politically. Naturally, those people can't wait thousands of years, so they have to push an agenda that basically claims the sky is falling and we have to act now---that act being the expenditure of 131 TRILLION dollars to follow the Paris accords. Now that's what I call a profit motive. A profit motive that hangs climatologists who don't follow the party line into professional suicide, one that blasts us with "heat indices" rather than actual temperatures, one that revamped the methodology of calculating temperature data in 1979, one that blames every little weather quirk into "proof" of their narrative.

The bottom line is that a few years of weather data, or even 150 years going back to the beginning or reasonably accurate records is a drop in the bucket compared to the timeline in question.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Which laws of thermodynamics prevent water from being heated by direct sunlight or warmed by other material in the water that is being heated by the sunlight?

101 seems off, particularly given the difference from the 95.6 degrees measured by the neighboring buoys. Even if it is accurate, the explanation for why it was so different might negate the value of the measurement.

The type of paint, the color, shape and physical composition can all affect temps on and around a buoy, whether they are warmer or colder. This could account for the variations with the other buoys?

[bcsnave]

Originally Posted by Normal

The type of paint, the color, shape and physical composition can all affect temps on and around a buoy, whether they are warmer or colder. This could account for the variations with the other buoys?

Yeah a lot of things can affect the temps around Buoys

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

You gots some proof it wasn't a correct temp reading?
As far as the pool theory. You have a circulating pump. It continually circulates water from a shaded area. If you don't believe me shut the pump off for four or five days and then tell me what the temperature is.

And the ocean doesn't have continuous circulation of it's water?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Haggar

I'm tired of the non-stop bs about the 7 year cooling trend you espouse at every occasion.

See the attached article. One of many articles about this "statistic" you use to "prove" your case and deny we have a problem.

Steven Hawking - before his death - stated mankind wouldn't be around by 2100. I'm in the camp if you deniers don't stop burying your heads in the sand he'll be right.

Tell the people who have died because of the continuing heat wave we don't have a problem.

Fact Check-Eight cooler years cannot be extrapolated to draw conclusions on long-term global warming | Reuters

More people die every year from cold than die from heat...

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Tropical weather that drifts over from Africa always hits the warm water of the Caribbean and Gulf. Please tell us you didn't believe that idiotic report that water temperature in key Largo was 101.1. Pretty amazing when you consider a 12,000 gallon pool on your lanai reaches 87 with no waves pulling in cooler water from deeper areas, but the 22 trillion gallon Atlantic gets to 101.1 with constant waves hitting the shore. I call BS, double BS and triple BS. Somebody must think we're pretty stupid.

They do

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Southwest737

Just returned from scuba trip in Key West. Water temperature was 91 or 92 everyday on the Gulf side. Past years it was 86 to 88 in mid August.

How were the coral reefs? Noticeably bleached?

[bcsnave]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

How were the coral reefs? Noticeably bleached?

Pollution, overfishing, destructive fishing practices using dynamite or cyanide, collecting live corals for the aquarium market, mining coral for building materials, and a warming climate are some of the many ways that people damage reefs all around the world every day

Human Threats to Corals: Corals Tutorial.