sculptor
Valued Senior Member
And yet,
You cannot bring yourself to ignore me.
Do you really need to add more regrets to your long list of life's regrets?
and now................................................?
Is global warming even real?
- Thread starter Ilikeponies579
- Start date
And yet,
You cannot bring yourself to ignore me.
Do you really need to add more regrets to your long list of life's regrets?
and now................................................?
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Original Source: theAustralian.com.au Paywalled. Reprinted via JoNova with comment on Text and Arrows.
QUOTE bbc:
A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
TRUNCATED ...So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
And as an added bonus. Source of GISP2 vs GRIP temps
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337
http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GRIPtempBox480.png
Last edited:
http://mashable.com/2015/01/23/ocean-warming-broke-chart/ said:
* Even if man could cap CO2 release to currently rate - his "goose is cooked" - but he is turning up the "CO2 burners" of the stove more every year!
Only economically and politically viable thing man could do is make a switch, ASAP** to sugar cane based alcohol fuel for motor vehicles, but that seems to me able to "buy" only a generational delay (if CO2 release from sources, other than cars, etc. keeps increasing as seems very likely) before NTE (near term extinction) for most warm blooded animals (except tiny mice) that perspire to control body heat. (Humans generate ~100W, reading a book in a chair or more watching TV.)
** That would take less than a decade to build the needed new distillation plants, and plant the sugar cane. Thanks to many generations of "slash and burn, then move on" agriculture in the third world (and once in the US's old south pre civil war cotton growing regions)*** there is more than enough abandoned pasture than required in the near tropics zone from -40 to +40 latitude.
*** but that land and labor to work it, is too expensive now to grow low value per acre sugar cane.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said before I never gave meme's much thought until AGW came along. Falls under normal behavior for social/pack/herd animals and not something special, certainly nothing that required a name/classification beyond what most animals teach their young as survival skills...
A meme [1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Original Source: theAustralian.com.au Paywalled. Reprinted via JoNova with comment on Text and Arrows.
QUOTE bbc:
A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
TRUNCATED ...So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
And as an added bonus. Source of GISP2 vs GRIP temps
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337
http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GRIPtempBox480.png
Typical pseudoscience. This is the lamest and most dishonest way to treat data: invent a syndrome, and then find a filter that makes the data fit the syndrome.
Using the same method, I can find the picture of the Virgin Mary in your voiceprint.
Of course this is just a red herring, to dodge the facts discovered by Fourier, Tyndall, Callendar, Revelle, Keeling, et al, which spurred the UN to create the IPCC. In brief, those facts are:
(1) There is a greenhouse effect
(2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
(3) CO2 is concentrated in trace amounts
(4) Human industry matches, per century, the entire Pre-Industrial mass of atmospheric CO2
(5) Fossil fuel combustion therefore accelerates the pace of global warming.
All other facts or claims are trumped by these.
What are Joules when represented as temp? And why do they choose to represent heat content in joules? I know they got the data as temp. Argo doesnt measure Joules, rather it measures temp and depth. So there must be some math involved to convert these temps into what appears to be VERY impressive and Huge numbers. Well it doesnt take long to find someone out there who has taken the initiative to reveal these secrets.
Heres one:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
What is UCSD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_San_Diego
The take away mcNugget size "wtf does that mean??"
from link above (AND TRUNCATED)
...
Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best-known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008). For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.
... <-- that means End Truncated
REALLY?? 6/100ths of a degree (c) since the early 1960s?? 50 (count them) 50 years to get 6/100ths of a degree (c).
Here's another that shows you the math involved (I havent and wont check their math):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html
Judith Curry (who supplied the above link) asks:
So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/
Edited to add:
Does anyone have a link showing exactly what kind of (gordian knot) mathmatics they used to convert 25 (roughly) degrees (c) into 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (and change).
LOL No Kidding!! Wiki doesnt even have the name for 10 to the 22nd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_10#Positive_powers
Heres one:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
What is UCSD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_San_Diego
The take away mcNugget size "wtf does that mean??"
from link above (AND TRUNCATED)
...
Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best-known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008). For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.
... <-- that means End Truncated
REALLY?? 6/100ths of a degree (c) since the early 1960s?? 50 (count them) 50 years to get 6/100ths of a degree (c).
Here's another that shows you the math involved (I havent and wont check their math):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html
Judith Curry (who supplied the above link) asks:
So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/
Edited to add:
Does anyone have a link showing exactly what kind of (gordian knot) mathmatics they used to convert 25 (roughly) degrees (c) into 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (and change).
LOL No Kidding!! Wiki doesnt even have the name for 10 to the 22nd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_10#Positive_powers
Last edited:
That explains your posts in part. The part you haven't disclosed is your incentive for emulating Rush Limbaugh in furtherance of such a moronic system of indoctrination.
Yeah. Cult more than culture. You guys would have to get an education before you could be called acculturated. What has happened to you is that you have shed your culture, out of laziness, since studying is hard work. You are deliberately "disacculturated". Or, if you prefer, deliberately ignorant. As outsiders, misfits, you attack all of academia as a monolithic (and incompetent) clique. It's militant ignorance. But it's easily cured by cracking a book, passing the SAT, and enrolling in a college degree plan. And it's never too late.
But you are on track. Now you understand why the Limbaugh meme is found nowhere in the science. Instead you have to grow a spine and start to shovel through mountains of data. But that defeats the game you are playing here. That's why you will soon be penalized for posting pseudoscience here. Take that crap to the lower threads.
It's normalized to SI units. Same reason Newtons is used for force and Watts for power.
The secret is passing a Freshman science course. Joules do not "convert" to temperature. Heat (energy) of a gas is the calculation or measurement, in Joules, of n moles of the substance at a temperature T: E=nRT, where R is the gas constant. That energy is equal to the pressure times volume, ideally. In problems of varying pressure ( depths) you need to account for the pressure variations.
No. You have to work in Joules. That's the source of your error. And you need a little oceanography before jumping to conclusions about sea temp. changes.
Be honest. You can't.
It's meaningless unless you work in Joules. And you need a background in physical science (esp chemistry and oceanography) to understand what it means.
You mean the SAT was a Gordian knot for you. The answer is simple. Figure out how many moles are in a liter and how many liters are in the ocean and you will next ask how they got such a small number.
This appalling ignorance on display warned me not to read the rest, but I'll try to educate you a little. (Probably a wasted effort, but not for readers who can learn.):
There are many units for most quanties. Joules, calories, ergs, watt-seconds, foot-pounds, BTUs and a dozen more all are units that can be used to specify energy and heat is energy, the lowest quality form. Called that as higher quality forms of energy, like watt-seconds can be converted into heat with 100% efficiency, but not the other way around.* One of the "others" I often use is the eV. For example the energy difference between the n & m principle quantum number levels of the hydrogen atom is 13.6(1/n - 1/m)eV. Visible light from it has n=2 and m>2. those lines are called the Balmer series. When n=1, all lines are in the UV and called the Lyman series.
Temperature is not energy so none of the above units can be used to describe how much energy. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a collection of molecules, but strictly speaking these molecules must have a particular distribution of their individual kinetic energy for there to even be a temperature, even thought there always is an average of their kinetic energy. A large glass of cold water has more thermal energy than a thimble of boiling water does. That is why they used proper energy units, not degrees, to tell how much energy the top 2000 meters of ocean held.
* Carnot showed at least 100 years ago (much more I think) that if you have a large hot reservoir at temperature Th, which is so large that you can take some thermal energy from it with insignificant decrease in its temperature and a large colder reservoir at Tc into which the thermal energy that can not be converted in to a higher quality form of energy can be "dumped," that the maximum fraction of the energy taken from the hot reservoir that can be converted in to a higher quality form is given by this simple equation at end of post, when the temperatures are stated in the Kelvin scale (also called the absolute temperature scale.) 0K = -273C but a degree C equals a degree K, and they are 9/5 times larger than a degree F.
Conversion efficiency max = (Th - Tc)/ Th. So 1 - that, by conservation of energy, is the fraction that is dumped into the colder reservoir.
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said in my ridiculing of the graph (I've seen it many many times). "wtf does that mean?" Which is the average persons response to seeing that associated with GW. But it makes sense why they dont want to show you a graph of it as an average person would comprehend; the ridiculously small change in 50 years (plus or minus whatever to relate to the inaccuracy of past ocean temps). As the Argo page indicates:
For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.
So clearly the ability to display the information as temperature exists. But they choose not to.
And dont get me wrong, I think the data Argo is gathering is important. But if your going to try to wrap that around GW I will attempt put it into perspective.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Long ago and far away, while studying the sciences, I had a professor who ranted against what he called "gee whiz" graphs.
Which meant graphs which did not have data which refuted the claims.
Make a graph that only shows the years which sell the idea, or remove the bottom of the graph and adjust the x and y axis to make the graph more dramatic.
When I see graphs which fall into his "gee whiz" model, I am immediately skeptical of the argument which they purportedly support.
As, I think, we should all be.
Anyone can present partial information in support of an argument.
The best lie is a partial truth.
Which meant graphs which did not have data which refuted the claims.
Make a graph that only shows the years which sell the idea, or remove the bottom of the graph and adjust the x and y axis to make the graph more dramatic.
When I see graphs which fall into his "gee whiz" model, I am immediately skeptical of the argument which they purportedly support.
As, I think, we should all be.
Anyone can present partial information in support of an argument.
The best lie is a partial truth.
They are not global waming deniers, who would use the wrong units just to get small number (0.6degree) when their point was that ~90% of the energy the sun has given earth recently has yet to be felt by land dwellers. - It is in the ocean and will come out*, and there is nothing we can do to stop that. All we can do is misrepresent the truth as deniers do by using small temperature change as a "measure" of how much already absorbed heat has happened.
* More accurate is to say this "storage of heat" will not need to be done again, so ever more of the solar energy can heat the land - eventually land and ocean temperatures will be on average essentially the same.
PS I note in post 271 you quoted my earlier version where I said "lack of understanding" but I made that more accurately into: "ignorance" in the next version.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, they are not deniers. They are alarmists. Chicken littles spouting about how the sky is falling. I wish it was simply ignorance that defines their motive.
I've already pointed out to you the incompetence and/or dishonesty of that graph from that source. If you can't even spot that level of bs, you need to find someone to screen your sources for you. In particular, that one - whoever added the lies and bullshit trend lines and deceptive little text notes - is not your friend. They are playing you.milkweed said:
This is, quite literaly, highschool level science (or at least it was when I went through highschool).
Because heat content has a specific meaning in thermodynamics and is measured in joules.
Source
As is heat:
Source
Yes, it's more highschool level thermodynamics - it's called, get this, heat capacity.
Source
Here (Link) from an engineering website, we have a list of heat capacities for various substances, and we see that for pure liquid water it takes 4182 Joules of heat energy to raise the temperature of 1kg of water by 1°C. The heat capacity for sewater of average salinity is 3985 J/kg/K at 0°C and 3993 J/kg/K at 20 °C. The total mass of the hydrosphere is estimated to be 1.4x10^21 kg which means it's going to take somewhere around the vicinity of 5.5x10^24 Joules of heat to raise the temperature of the hydrosphere by 1°C.
This back of the envelope caclulation done using nothing more than the level of thermodynamics they teach in Highschools shows us that 10^22 Joules of heat energy for a temperature change of 10^-2 °C is in the right ball-park.
From whence the assumption that the brazillian drought has anything to do with global warming, as opposed to say, deforestation (being caused by roads and farming practices), or being exclusively the result of global warming (as opposed to the combination of the two).
One can not prove that lack of water in Sao Paulo, that has never been so extreme in more than 450 years,* is due to global warming or the shrinking of the Amazon Rain forest, but it is quite as stretch to think it is not related to Global Warming, as drought here and in the rain forest are predictions of the more accepted GW models.
The city of Manaus is in the center of the amazon rain forest. It was once the largest, and by far the richest city in Brazil. Google just told me it is 1,673 miles from Sao Paulo and that Sacramento is 1683 miles for St. Louis, thru which the Mississippi river flows. Thus it makes about the same amount of sense to blame Sao Paulo's drought problems on less trees in the amazon as it does to blame California's drought on less water flowing down the Mississippi river.
* The Portuguese village of São Paulo was marked by the founding of the Colégio de São Paulo de Piratininga on January 25, 1554. Europeans there years earlier.
I've been in that 460 year old building, but don't know how many times it has had major restorations. Jamestown, first English city in US, was founded in 1607 (>50 years later)
Last edited by a moderator:
Is my post that was all at post 248 (Last part now moved here to reply to your post) also just an alarmist's creation / POV? or is it facts that are scary?
If not ALL facts, PLEASE tell which statements are false.
"First note CH4 is mainly removed from the air by reaction with the negative OH radical. I'm not a chemist but know it is a many step process but must be in net be something like this to balance out the reaction equation 2CH4 + 4OH + 3O2 ---> 2CO2 + 6H2O. The OH and the splitting of the 3 oxygen molecules is done high up in the atmosphere by harsh solar UV and the production rate of these oxidizers is thus limited by the harsh UV flux. Also note that four OH radical are needed to destroy two methane molecule. For last 800,000 years, the UV production rate was faster than the CH4 release rate so, as you can see in graph below, the CH4 concentration was held low. (Destroyed by the relatively more abundant OH radical.) BTW producing water, a much worse GHG than even CH4, high up in the atmosphere, I think, is the main source of it up there where rain droplets do not form, again "I think."
Now the release of CH4 is much more rapid and it is relatively more abundant than the OH radical. CH4 is stating to hold the OH radical concentration low. That means the average length of time a CH4 molecule "lives" - its half life is increasing. In 2003 the CH4 half life was 9.6 years, but in 2013 it had increased to 12.6 years. I. e. the half life is now increasing at about 0.3 years per year and the rate of increase is accelerating as the OH radical concentration falls. Fortunately most oil wells do now "flare off" the CH4 that comes up with the oil, and greater care is now being taken to reduce the CH4 escape for natural gas pipeline and gas well.
As you can see in the right half of the graph below, which has a much shorter time scale, the CH4 concentration in the air is still increasing, but at a slower rate, in large part due to these more careful controls of the oil and gas industries as they try to reduce CH4 release. Counter balancing this, is that a "finger" of the Gulf Stream is now entering the Arctic Ocean and flowing along the Siberian continental shelf. Probably why CH4 from decomposing methane hydrates is bubble up to the surface now even in kilometer diameter zones. I'll try to find again the video showing them, and insert link to it here but found this general discussion first:
This inter-glacial period is different from all prior ones in the last 800,000 years:
After air became oxidizing, the Sun's rate of production of the OH radical held the CH4 concentration low, but now CH4 is holding the OH radial concentration low.
Even at the current half life 1Kg of CH4 does more global warming than 100Kg of CO2 in the first decade after their release. The amount of releasable CH4 holds more carbon than exists in all the coal on earth. I.e. for practical purposes*, there is no limit on how high the CH4 concentration can climb. That is why this time is not only "different" but very scary. May make humans and all animal that perspire to keep cool except very tiny ones become extinct. (The tiny ones, like small mice, have much higher surface to body mass ratios and also can/ and do/ spend most of the heat of the day in their burros at the average temperature and lower at night.)
Thus the Bible may be correct in its forecast that: "The meek {the mice} shall inherit the Earth"
* Mankind will be extinct before that limit is reached.
People, like Eskimos who know how to live in Arctic regions will not be "done in" by the heat, but by ocean acidification which will remove much of their food supply, including the seals they hunt at the top of a food chain, which is collapsing from the bottom up. It is not a pretty picture I paint and it may be wrong, but that is no reason not to switch to sugar cane alcohol for transportation fuel ASAP. There is enough abandoned pasture to grow cane for all the world's cars needing liquid fuel a decade from now and the new distillation plants needed can be built more rapidly than that. There are many advantages of such a switch, in addition to less cost per mile driven and a renewable fuel that is slightly "CO2 negative" displacing gasoline, including creation of many low skill required jobs for people not now part of the "cash economy" who would buy products from the "first world" if they could - that creates more high tech jobs too.
If you are willing to hear a very depressing, but fact filled and well referenced talk watch this:
Last edited by a moderator:
This is an argument from personal ignorance - equally to the point is the fact that it also falls within the predictions of the consequences of deforestation.
This is dishonest argumentation on a par with any I have seen from the staunchest opponents of global warming.
California's drought has nothing to do with the Mississippi because California is not in the Mississippi catchment and is not serviced by the Mississippi. In fact, California is seperated from the Mississippi by a substantial mountain range - substantial enough to cause orographic rainfall.
On the other hand, evapotranspiration of water back into the atmosphere by the flora of the Amazon basin (and subsequent transport south) forms a significant part of the water cycle of most (or all) of Southern Brazil - at least according to Brazillian climate scientists.