Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting discussion, and my thinking is you don't know what mass is heating --iow how much of the ocean and how deep in the land is being heated. Important facts:

• Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10 18 kg
• Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10 21 kg

--which means the mass of the ocean is almost a thousand time that of the atmosphere which means we can ignore the greenhouse effect on the atmosphere if the heating/cooling of the ocean is connected.

To me, the entire AGW narrative can only make sense if we've identified the mass that's heating. If you know please share. If you don't know then please consider that your belief is something that you don't know what it is may be heating from the greenhouse. IOW, if your understanding is tenuous then let's be clear about it.

How do you think that the ocean is heating? Here is a hint, if the atmosphere gets warmer the ocean gets . . . ?

Again, if you do not understand ask questions. There are some actual experts on AGW here (by the way, I am not one of them, I just know far more than you do).

 

[exchemist]

Interesting discussion, and my thinking is you don't know what mass is heating --iow how much of the ocean and how deep in the land is being heated. Important facts:

• Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10 18 kg
• Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10 21 kg

--which means the mass of the ocean is almost a thousand time that of the atmosphere which means we can ignore the greenhouse effect on the atmosphere if the heating/cooling of the ocean is connected.

To me, the entire AGW narrative can only make sense if we've identified the mass that's heating. If you know please share. If you don't know then please consider that your belief is something that you don't know what it is may be heating from the greenhouse. IOW, if your understanding is tenuous then let's be clear about it.

Are you interested in understanding the basis of the climate change theory, as you have been maintaining up to now?

If so, read the link in post 193 and we can discuss it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did a bit of research and found this article.

Rising Waters: How NASA is Monitoring Sea Level Rise

Our global sea level is rising at a faster and faster rate-impacting communities along coastlines worldwide. From space, planes, and ships, @NASA is #SeeingTheSeas while studying the causes and effects of our rising waters.

www.nasa.gov

It seems that NASA takes all kinds of things into account when measuring mean sea level, gravity being just one of them. No mention of a scam for some reason.

Some dude on Facebook just told me that NASA are notorious liars and they just made this up to control us. Like, with a straight face and everything. How does he know this? He read it on the internet somewhere.

 

[Alien826]

My response was to say that your concern is an irrelevant derail, since the OP stipulates to AGW and poses an entirely different question. I understand that you want to debate AGW, but you shouldn't try to derail a thread topic because you aren't really interested in the discussion. As far as I am concerned, AGW is not scientifically controversial. It is politically controversial. As Sayak83 was pointing out, the debate over whether global warming is manmade has been debated at length in other threads. We've all seen that debate and don't necessarily want to revisit it here. If you are interested in what makes me think global warming is manmade, my response is that my opinion is based on the scientific consensus. Scientists do a better job of explaining the data than I do.

Something that occurs to me is that someone who seriously wants to understand something like this will first read some sites that explain the science behind it. They wouldn't jump on to a site like this asking people to explain simple concepts to them. If understanding the scientific explanation is beyond them, and there's nothing wrong with that, by all means ask someone to explain it, but I suspect the motivation is very often attempting to get people to admit that they don't understand it fully, and then go on to say that the science must be wrong.

 

[Alien826]

Some dude on Facebook just told me that NASA are notorious liars and they just made this up to control us. Like, with a straight face and everything. How does he know this? He read it on the internet somewhere.

Dang, here's me thinking that NASA with all their clever people, satellites and stuff would be believable. How silly of me.

 

[exchemist]

Something that occurs to me is that someone who seriously wants to understand something like this will first read some sites that explain the science behind it. They wouldn't jump on to a site like this asking people to explain simple concepts to them. If understanding the scientific explanation is beyond them, and there's nothing wrong with that, by all means ask someone to explain it, but I suspect the motivation is very often attempting to get people to admit that they don't understand it fully, and then go on to say that the science must be wrong.

Yes, that is exactly what is going on here. I will be amazed (though pleasantly) if @Pete in Panama actually reads the link I provided him and comes back with intelligent questions about it.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Are you interested in understanding the basis of the climate change theory, as you have been maintaining up to now?

If so, read the link in post 193 and we can discuss it.

Thanks much, meanwhile our understanding is someone has probably figured out just what part of the earth's mass is heating up, but neither of us knows what it is. We can leave it at that and I wish you well.

Cheers!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks much, meanwhile our understanding is someone has probably figured out just what part of the earth's mass is heating up, but neither of us knows what it is. We can leave it at that and I wish you well.

Cheers!

Correction. You do not know. Why is it that so many Christians do not understand that making claims about others puts a huge burden of proof upon the person making that claim. How are you going to demonstrate that others do not know what mass is heating up? You do not even understand something as simple as the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks much, meanwhile our understanding is someone has probably figured out just what part of the earth's mass is heating up, but neither of us knows what it is. We can leave it at that and I wish you well.

Cheers!

If you read the link, you can find the answers to your enquiry. It is not just one number. It is considerably more involved than that, given the gradations of temperature rise at different depths of the ocean. The temperature rises have been measured and converted to a figure in W/m2, for use in meteorological modelling.

 

[Copernicus]

The reason I say that the greenhouse effect cannot raise the temp of the earth (by the one-plus degrees since the industrial revolution everyone seems to agree on), is because of what we know what our middle school science class told us about how heat works:

• We know that it takes one calorie of heat to raise the temp of on gram of water one degree C.
• We know the mass of the earth is 5.9722x10^24 kg.
• We can guess that the average specific heat of the earth is around 800 cal/kg ⋅ C --not critical.
• The amount of energy reaching the earth from the sun is 173,000 terawatts.

All this tells us that if 100% of the suns energy was absorbed by the earth (100% greenhouse) then it would take about 10,000 years for the earth to heat up one degree. So we know the globe is not warming but it's possible that the biosphere or part of it is. I've seen some sources that say the ocean (the vast majority of the mass that's heating) is heating to a depth of some amount. Sources differ as to just how much.

This is basic. AGW advocates say the earth is heating because of the greenhouse. We know that's not true. It's possible that a part of it is. I'm trying to find out what part. So far I can't find an agreement. Maybe there is but I can't find it. Agreement on the main AGW premise means we have to have agreement on what mass is heating. You say AGW is correct. You tell me, what mass is heating?

Your argument was debunked in post 193, so I'm not going to go over the same territory, especially since I'm not a climate scientist, as I've told you repeatedly. You can and should address your argument to people who can explain the flaws in your reasoning better, but your last bullet point stops short of taking into account the greenhouse effect--i.e. heat from the sun that is trapped in the land, water, and air and that is not radiated back out into space.

Anyway, I pointedly asked you who was informing your skepticism of the consensus of climate scientists, and you pointedly ignored me, apparently trying to give the impression that you arrived at your argument during your middle school education. Brilliant. But somehow I suspect that there may be some reluctance on your part to give actual sources for the argument you are presenting here. Instead, you seem to think that the vast majority of people who devote their lives to studying climate science have blinded themselves to a simple argument that middle school children can see through. Perhaps, that is why you persist in addressing your concerns about AGW with people on social media who are, like you, not actual climate scientists.

Reference: Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

[Pete in Panama]

If you read the link, you can find the answers to your enquiry. It is not just one number. It is considerably more involved...

Right, the link does not say what is heating up from the GH effect. No prob, I'll keep looking. My hope is I can find some kind of consensus as to what assumptions are useful.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Your argument was debunked in post 193...

Please understand that I am not arguing. I'm trying to find out what the AGW advocates are saying. Please let me know if/when you find out what the GH effect is heating. I'll keep looking too.

 

[exchemist]

Right, the link does not say what is heating up from the GH effect. No prob, I'll keep looking. My hope is I can find some kind of consensus as to what assumptions are useful.

Yes it does. It tells you which layers of the ocean are heating and by how much. It tells you the measured amount of temperature rise and hence the additional heat content of the oceans due to climate change. That is a prerequisite for modelling the changes to weather (for example the energy in hurricanes comes from heat in the oceans, as I expect you know).

If you want data on the heating of the atmosphere, there is a link within the document with details on that too. Here it is: https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf. It's a bit old now (2013) but it still gives the right idea.

So between these two you should have the information you have been asking for.

 

[exchemist]

Please understand that I am not arguing. I'm trying to find out what the AGW advocates are saying. Please let me know if/when you find out what the GH effect is heating. I'll keep looking too.

You were given this information in post 193.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were given this information in post 193.

I could have warned you. But I often do the same myself.

He wants answers to his strawman version of AGW and is disappointed that they do not exist.

 

[exchemist]

I could have warned you. But I often do the same myself.

He wants answers to his strawman version of AGW and is disappointed that they do not exist.

I must say the notion of trying to calculate the temperature increase based on the total mass of the earth, as if the assumption is that is heated all the way through, is one of the stupidest I have come across for a while.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dang, here's me thinking that NASA with all their clever people, satellites and stuff would be believable. How silly of me.

Yeah, like come on, get with it. We don't need no stinkin' data and measurements. Just go with your gut!

He also told me that Oprah Winfrey has been starting those wildfires in Hawaii with some kind of lasers or something because they don't want 15 minute cities so she had to take matters into her own hands. Totally serious.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, like come on, get with it. We don't need no stinkin' data and measurements. Just go with your gut!

He also told me that Oprah Winfrey has been starting those wildfires in Hawaii with some kind of lasers or something because they don't want 15 minute cities so she had to take matters into her own hands. Totally serious.

Eh what?? Has someone said that on this forum? Where? Sounds hilarious.

 

[wellwisher]

"Not even wrong", as Pauli might put it. Just rambling ballocks.

If the mean temperature of the ocean rises, there will be a net expansion, so it will take up a bigger volume overall. All this crap about the equator, variations in g etc is quite irrelevant.

The oceans are very deep and the average increase in temperature of the oceans, to the bottom, would takes millions of years to change, unless we also heat from the bottom; crustal boundaries where the crust is thinner due to miles of water instead of all crust like the continents. The top 100 meters of expanded ocean water at 1 degree C increase, is not that much in terms of ocean level changes.

for every degree C that we increase the temperature of one unit (any unit-volume measurement) of water, its volume (expressed in the same units) will increase by 0.000208 (cubic meters, gallons, whatever).

If we were to freeze the oceans, we get a 10% increase in sea level, since water expands when it freezes. The oceans would tower over the coastline. Even 100 meters of ocean would expand 10 meters; iceberg.

If we heat the oceans, since heat rises and water gets less dense, the heated water stays at the top. When it gets cold, the cold denser water will sink to lower depths, while any warmer water will float up to get colder. Ice ages work much faster and are far more dangerous to life. I doubt there was any major extinction due to a warming earth.

The warming patterns of the earth tend to open up more land for use and resources. We get more rain and more farmable land with a longer average growing season. This is needed for the larger world population. You guys need to look at the bright side and not depend on just fear mongering. That is too political. Science is supposed to be like Mr Spock,. cold and objective and not over heated with fear to whip the mob into a frenzy.

 

[Alien826]

The warming patterns of the earth tend to open up more land for use and resources. We get more rain and more farmable land with a longer average growing season. This is needed for the larger world population. You guys need to look at the bright side and not depend on just fear mongering. That is too political. Science is supposed to be like Mr Spock,. cold and objective and not over heated with fear to whip the mob into a frenzy.

Be careful. We have to look at what is happening at the other end of the scale too. As the temperature bands "move" northwards (in the northern hemisphere), previously productive areas become less so. And other factors get disrupted, like pollinating insects. Then add the fact that population centers have been determined by these very factors, so large numbers of refugees can be expected. I very much doubt that the net effect will be favorable.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300116