When you place a cold pot of water on a stove top burner...

[Union Yes]

and set the burner on high, the water slowly starts to heat toward it's boiling point. Duh.

As the water heats toward boiling, things start happening. Steam starts to rise from the water surface. The rate of evaporation increases as the temperature increases. If you forget about your boiling pot of water, it'll soon boil itself dry. It takes roughly an hour for a pot of water to boil dry. I know, I did it years ago. I forgot a pot of boiling water on the stove top back in my college years.

So we all know that water evaporates faster when it warms up. Place that same pot of water on your counter top and it would take 2-3 weeks for it to evaporate or perhaps longer. That same pot of water on a red hot burner would boil dry in 1-2 hours at most.

The point...

Our planet is covered by what, 75% water? 3/4 of our planets surface is covered by oceans, lakes, rivers. That's a lot of water surface for water to evaporate from.

Our oceans are warming. The science on this is clear.

Warm ocean water temps are the source of El Nino. The weather phenomena partly responsible for a warm snowless Vancouver Winter Olympics although I believe VC is getting snow as I type this op.

But what's the source of our planets rising ocean temps? What's causing these ocean temps to rise?

The science is clear. Increasing carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases are feeding the greenhouse effect. Warming the entire planet. Water is a wonderful heat sinc. Think of a radiator in a cars engine. Filled with water and anti-freeze that keeps it's engine cool.

Our oceans are absorbing increased heat. Furthering the warming and increasing ocean temps even faster. The science on rising ocean temps is clear.

We know that evaporation rates increase as water temps rise. Warm water evaporates faster.

What happens when water evaporates into our atmosphere? Water vapor eventually forms into clouds. Clouds drop rain/snow/sleet. Increased amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere increase the amount and severity of rain/snow/sleet and also drive winds, tornadoes and hurricanes. It can also drive drought in certain places like parts of California or it can increase rainfall in other areas and cause flooding and similar damage.

The science is clear on the fact that increased water vapor in the atmosphere is driving storm intensity, severity, and frequency. Rachel Maddow did a nice piece on this point a few nights ago.

Our warming planet is warming our oceans and increasing the rate of evaporation which increases water vapor in our atmosphere. Warming oceans are feeding storm severity and increasing their frequency. The science is clear.

I'm just guessing that the recent heavy snowstorms across much of America had more to do with increased amounts of water vapor rather than Beck trying to use it as an excuse to deny climate change science.

A snowless and warm winter olympics where they have to truck in the snow is Mother Earth's way of telling Glen Beck that she's got Beck's denial of climate change right here!

[Lasher]

1. Nice way to put it.

Dummied down so that even wingnuts might have a tiny chance of understanding.

:thumbsup:

[Union Yes]

4. This was my best attempt to write it in "Freepish"..

so even those wingnuts could understand.

Peace

:fistbump:

[leftofcool]

8. Naw, they still won't get it.

Even the ones who get it won't admit they get it.

[Union Yes]

9. I like your screenname.

I can relate.

I place myself in tht same area on the political spectrum.

Peace.

:fistbump:

[Lasher]

10. That's true.

You can't pour tea into a full cup. But if we challenge lies and promote truth, maybe we will win over a spectator or two along the way.

[Union Yes]

16. Exactly. Well said! nt

[SidDithers]

2. Rec...

well done.

Sid

[tinrobot]

3. Thank you for some stove top logic...

...to counter the deniers.

[Union Yes]

7. My pleasure!

:fistbump:

[BunkerHill24]

5. Nicely done.

K&R

[MineralMan]

6. A little simplistic, but good anyhow.

[agent46]

11. Send this to Beck n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. "Warm ocean water temps are the source of El Nino." I think that's backwards.

You ask "...what's the source of our planets rising ocean temps? What's causing these ocean temps to rise?" In the case of "El Nino", it isn't anything man has done. Read on:

ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. There is also evidence for strong El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.<53>

El Niño affected pre-Columbian Incas <54> and may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.<55> A recent study suggests that a strong El-Niño effect between 1789-93 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.<56>

An early recorded mention of the term "El Niño" to refer to climate occurs in 1892, when Captain Camilo Carrillo told the Geographical society congress in Lima that Peruvian sailors named the warm northerly current "El Niño" because it was most noticeable around Christmas. The phenomenon had long been of interest because of its effects on the guano industry and other enterprises that depend on biological productivity of the sea.

Charles Todd, in 1893, suggested that droughts in India and Australia tended to occur at the same time; Norman Lockyer noted the same in 1904.An El Niño connection with flooding was reported in 1895 by Pezet and Eguiguren. In 1924 Gilbert Walker (for whom the Walker circulation is named) coined the term "Southern Oscillation".

The major 1982-83 El Niño lead to an upsurge of interest from the scientific community. The period from 1990-1994 was unusual in that El Niños have rarely occurred in such rapid succession.<57> An especially intense El Niño event in 1998 caused an estimated 16% of the world’s reef systems to die. The event temporarily warmed air temperature by 1.5°C, compared to the usual increase of 0.25°C associated with El Niño events.<58> Since then, mass coral bleaching has become common worldwide, with all regions having suffered ‘severe bleaching’.<59>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino#Cultural_history_and_pre-historic_information

[elocs]

13. As with any kind of denier, logic and factual arguments make absolutely no difference

and never will. A denier will simply not believe anything that contradicts their denial and will argue away or disregard anything to the contrary. They can never be convinced and trying to do that is a waste of time and energy. It's like trying to convince a devout and devoted Christian or Muslim that there is no god and presenting evidence that you firmly believe supports that point of view.

[timeforpeace]

14. Simple is so much nicer than complex. And if anything is simple it's climate science.

[Union Yes]

15. The science on climate change is about as clear and simple as it gets.

:fistbump: