- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 19,529
- Reaction score
- 5,476
- Location
- Wokingham, England
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So Buzz.
Let me get this straight. Are you contending that I am wrong when I say when a heat is applied to an object that is greater than its loss of heat, that it does not increase in temperature? Are you contending that when the supplied heat is less than what is needed to maintain a temperature, that the object does not decrease in temperature?
You have me baffled. Do you believe in magic? How else do you explain your denial of science?
What I illustrated was a simple application of energy balance. The ocean is going to lose heat, at a rate primarily driven by its surface temperature. If I apply heat at a greater rate than it is lost, then the heat content, hence the temperature, will increase. The same science dictates the ocean will cool if I supply less heat than what is lost at the surface.
The epipelagic zone is 200 meters deep. This is a mass of more than 200 metric tons per meter. It takes more than 800 million joules of energy to raise this by 1 degree. If you know anything about science, you will know it takes a very long time to change the temperature of that water by one degree with the small change in surface insolation as the sun changes TSI. It takes so long, that the effects I showed on the graph are real.
Deny science all you want. I will just shake my head.
Bravo good post !