Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[exchemist]

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.

Read the link I posted in post 193.

That shows, not only that the oceans CAN be heated, but that they ARE. They have measured the increases, at a range of depths, all around the world, and have been doing so for years. Furthermore it is the upper part of the oceans that is in contact with the atmosphere and acts as a heat reservoir to power weather systems and determines rates of the evaporation which forms clouds and thus precipitation.

You are talking rubbish, from a position of complete ignorance.

Also you seem to be asleep. This issue has been settled science for quite some time, to the point that the world's governments, the motor manufacturers, the fossil fuel companies, the insurance companies and many more are spending trillions of dollars to change the way we get and use our energy, or clamouring for action to do so. The only debates now are about priorities, financing and how to make the changes palatable to the population. The changes are under way now.

 

[exchemist]

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

Quite. Not to mention the fires, hurricanes and floods which are already costing not only lives but trillions in insurance claims, and the threat of sea level rise. We may find the population of Bangladesh on the move eventually, never mind New Orleans and the Netherlands.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Some dude on Facebook who rejects climate change science in favour of ridiculous, unverified internet conspiracy theories.
I was just ... without words.

I did look up his claim about Oprah and what do you know? There it is, all over the internet. People will apparently believe anything without a scrap of evidence while simultaneously rejecting well-evidenced science.

 

[exchemist]

Some dude on Facebook who rejects climate change science in favour of ridiculous, unverified internet conspiracy theories.
I was just ... without words.

I did look up his claim about Oprah and what do you know? There it is, all over the internet. People will apparently believe anything without a scrap of evidence while simultaneously rejecting well-evidenced science.

Golly, you're right. There's even a piece on this in the Independent. Seems they've repurposed a time lapse photo of one of Musk's rockets taking off to suggest instead a laser beam coming down, and causing a fire on the ground. Unclear where Oprah Winfrey fits in. But she's a black woman and a bit left of centre, so she's a suitable hate object, I suppose.

I recall some QAnon-ish stuff about "Jewish(!) space lasers" a while back. That was that lunatic Marjorie Taylor-Greene, come to think of it and it was in relation to the last lot of California fires. Perhaps this is the latest iteration.

Anything, anything at all, however deranged, rather than accept it is climate change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Golly, you're right. There's even a piece on this in the Independent. Seems they've repurposed a time lapse photo of one of Musk's rockets taking off to suggest instead a laser beam coming down, and causing a fire on the ground. Unclear where Oprah Winfrey fits in. But she's a black woman and a bit left of centre, so she's a suitable hate object, I suppose.

I recall some QAnon-ish stuff about "Jewish(!) space lasers" a while back. That was that lunatic Marjorie Taylor-Greene, come to think of it and it was in relation to the last lot of California fires. Perhaps this is the latest iteration.

Yes! That's the one! Nutso, right? I even jokingly said to the guy "do you mean Jewish space lasers?" And he was like, "yeah, 'they' did it with lasers." Then I found the same doctored photo you just did. I sent him the original and showed him it had been doctored and well, golly gee, he just did not believe me. Even though the evidence was right there in front of his eyes.

Anything, anything at all, however deranged, rather than accept it is climate change.

Yep. That's when we started getting into the whole "NASA lies all the time" type of claims. Anything to deny the reality that's staring you right in the face.

 

[Pete in Panama]

You were given this information in post 193.

You do understand that I'm looking for a mass and neither the post nor the included link mentions a mass.

We don't need to quarrel, You're free to believe that I'm wrong for asking what the mass is. My hope is that I can find the mass and its temperature measurements since the industrial revolution to verify the 1.5C increase since then. Then to have measurements before to show that the increase is unusual.

Somehow these goals seem basic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do understand that I'm looking for a mass and neither the post nor the included link mentions a mass.

That is because you cannot define your "mass" properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Golly, you're right. There's even a piece on this in the Independent. Seems they've repurposed a time lapse photo of one of Musk's rockets taking off to suggest instead a laser beam coming down, and causing a fire on the ground. Unclear where Oprah Winfrey fits in. But she's a black woman and a bit left of centre, so she's a suitable hate object, I suppose.

I recall some QAnon-ish stuff about "Jewish(!) space lasers" a while back. That was that lunatic Marjorie Taylor-Greene, come to think of it and it was in relation to the last lot of California fires. Perhaps this is the latest iteration.

Anything, anything at all, however deranged, rather than accept it is climate change.

Oh they are very real:

 

[exchemist]

You do understand that I'm looking for a mass and neither the post nor the included link mentions a mass.

We don't need to quarrel, You're free to believe that I'm wrong for asking what the mass is. My hope is that I can find the mass and its temperature measurements since the industrial revolution to verify the 1.5C increase since then. Then to have measurements before to show that the increase is unusual.

Somehow these goals seem basic.

Then you need to formulate your question in a way that makes some sense for the scenario under analysis. As the links I have provided make clear, you can't just take a single mass number and apply the specific heat and a heat inflow to it. It's a lot more complicated than that. I haven't seen the details but from what I have read I would expect you need to perform some kind of integration for temperature elevation as a function of depth and apply the specific gravity to that for a column of seawater, then integrate that in 2D to get a volumetric result.

This is not a matter of just high school arithmetic.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Then you need to formulate your question in a way that makes some sense for the scenario under analysis. As the links I have provided make clear, you can't just take a single mass number and apply the specific heat and a heat inflow to it. It's a lot more complicated than that. I haven't seen the details but from what I have read I would expect you need to perform some kind of integration for temperature elevation as a function of depth and apply the specific gravity to that for a column of seawater, then integrate that in 2D to get a volumetric result.

This is not a matter of just high school arithmetic.

Thanks so much for coming back to me on this as my guess is that we're both coming together on what my problem is.

What we're looking at is the statement from Climate.gov (here) that the earth's temperature has risen 1.3°F since 1981 because of greenhouse gas. We have verified that the GH could not have raised the entire earth's temperature that much, but rather some part of it has received heat. To say the temperature of something has gone up 1.3°F then either the statement is mindless campaign rhetoric or we can know what the mass is and what the temperature of it was in 1981 (along w/ info on how that temperature was measured) along w/ the same temp info for 2023.

If what I am asking involves an oversimplification and that there's more to it, then we also have to say that the 1.3°F since 1981 is an oversimplification and the statement is bogus. Either the 1.3°F is accurate and the mass question is appropriate, or there's more to it and the 1.3°F is empty and the mass question is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks so much for coming back to me on this as my guess is that we're both coming together on what my problem is.

What we're looking at is the statement from Climate.gov (here) that the earth's temperature has risen 1.3°F since 1981 because of greenhouse gas. We have verified that the GH could not have raised the entire earth's temperature that much, but rather some part of it has received heat. To say the temperature of something has gone up 1.3°F then either the statement is mindless campaign rhetoric or we can know what the mass is and what the temperature of it was in 1981 (along w/ info on how that temperature was measured) along w/ the same temp info for 2023.

If what I am asking involves an oversimplification and that there's more to it, then we also have to say that the 1.3°F since 1981 is an oversimplification and the statement is bogus. Either the 1.3°F is accurate and the mass question is appropriate, or there's more to it and the 1.3°F is empty and the mass question is wrong.

Or, and this seems to be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr more likely, you have no clue what you are talking about at all.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks so much for coming back to me on this as my guess is that we're both coming together on what my problem is.

What we're looking at is the statement from Climate.gov (here) that the earth's temperature has risen 1.3°F since 1981 because of greenhouse gas. We have verified that the GH could not have raised the entire earth's temperature that much, but rather some part of it has received heat. To say the temperature of something has gone up 1.3°F then either the statement is mindless campaign rhetoric or we can know what the mass is and what the temperature of it was in 1981 (along w/ info on how that temperature was measured) along w/ the same temp info for 2023.

If what I am asking involves an oversimplification and that there's more to it, then we also have to say that the 1.3°F since 1981 is an oversimplification and the statement is bogus. Either the 1.3°F is accurate and the mass question is appropriate, or there's more to it and the 1.3°F is empty and the mass question is wrong.

I presume you are thinking of graphs like this one:



Plots like this generally relate to the global mean surface air temperature.

As they relate to temperature of the air at the surface, no mass figure is applicable.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I presume you are thinking of graphs like this one:



Plots like this generally relate to the global mean surface air temperature.

As they relate to temperature of the air at the surface, no mass figure is applicable.

No, that's the standard anomaly plot. While I'd love to see whatever temperature readings the plot was based on I'm referring to the statement at the top of the above link that goes...

Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.​

That's a good example of a bad example of a statement which on the surface is patently false, but if there's any truth to it we should be able to ask about supporting numbers, but if it's too complicated to look into then the statement is empty rhetoric because the topic is "complicated"..

 

[exchemist]

No, that's the standard anomaly plot. While I'd love to see whatever temperature readings the plot was based on I'm referring to the statement at the top of the above link that goes...

Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.​

That's a good example of a bad example of a statement which on the surface is patently false, but if there's any truth to it we should be able to ask about supporting numbers, but if it's too complicated to look into then the statement is empty rhetoric because the topic is "complicated"..

I don't see the problem. That graph again shows the annual global mean surface temperature, relative to the average over the last century or so. And the statement you quote simply gives the rates of rise indicated by that graph.

Which part of the statement are you saying is false and why?

As for the numbers behind it, they will be taken from all the weather stations around the world. There's nothing particularly dubious about that, surely?

 

[Alien826]

Thanks so much for coming back to me on this as my guess is that we're both coming together on what my problem is.

What we're looking at is the statement from Climate.gov (here) that the earth's temperature has risen 1.3°F since 1981 because of greenhouse gas. We have verified that the GH could not have raised the entire earth's temperature that much, but rather some part of it has received heat. To say the temperature of something has gone up 1.3°F then either the statement is mindless campaign rhetoric or we can know what the mass is and what the temperature of it was in 1981 (along w/ info on how that temperature was measured) along w/ the same temp info for 2023.

If what I am asking involves an oversimplification and that there's more to it, then we also have to say that the 1.3°F since 1981 is an oversimplification and the statement is bogus. Either the 1.3°F is accurate and the mass question is appropriate, or there's more to it and the 1.3°F is empty and the mass question is wrong.

On the link above, one of the first things I see, in big type, is a bar chart headed GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE. How is that anything but a clear description of what the 1.3F represents? Heck, don't you even read the links you provide?

To go on, we don't need the mass of the Earth to determine that. Just temperature readings taken with a thermometer at different locations on the Earth's surface. It's more complicated of course, but it's not rocket science to understand the general idea.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

OK, Pete. I'm not going to continue arguing with you, if you won't even admit that you are arguing. I've already said explicitly what the greenhouse effect has been heating. You act like you've never been in a car during the summer where you felt a need to roll down the windows. It must be a complete mystery to you as to what is heating up the interior of the car. I don't feel it would work for me to try to explain it to you, given how argumentative you get when people try to explain things to you.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I don't see the problem. That graph again shows the annual global mean surface temperature, relative to the average over the last century or so. And the statement you quote simply gives the rates of rise indicated by that graph.

Which part of the statement are you saying is false and why?

As for the numbers behind it, they will be taken from all the weather stations around the world. There's nothing particularly dubious about that, surely?

If there's any truth to it we should be able to ask about supporting numbers, but if it's too complicated to look into then the statement is empty rhetoric because the topic is "complicated".

 

[Pete in Panama]

On the link above, one of the first things I see, in big type, is a bar chart headed GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE. How is that anything but a clear description of what the 1.3F...

--and the label for the Y axis shows that all that is being portrayed are anomalies. Sure, they say that the anomalies are variances from some temperature, and that temperature (or temperatures) is (are) not given. All we have are anomalies, not temperatures.

If we heat up a pan of water to an anomaly of 35 degrees, will it boil? We don't know.

 

[Pete in Panama]

OK, Pete. I'm not going to continue arguing with you...

Cheers.

 

[exchemist]

If there's any truth to it we should be able to ask about supporting numbers, but if it's too complicated to look into then the statement is empty rhetoric because the topic is "complicated".

“If there’s any truth to it”?

Do you mean you think that graph, from a government website (in fact from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) may be faked rather than based on real measurements?