Why do so many people deny climate change

[flacaltenn]

Here's an estimate as a sanity check.

Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3

This converts to 1.3 * 10^21 kg

Specific heat of water: deg C = 4.186 Joules / gram

Using an approximation of 10 * 10^22 Joules rise since 2000, this converts to a 0.32 deg C rise. That's easily measurable. In fact, the resolution of a thermometer that's specifically designed for this is probably 100 times that.

1st cut? OK.. Now take sea water specifically. and add the pressure effects.. Good luck with the "more than 700m" description from this "letter"..

Part of the problem here -- is to my knowledge --- a PAPER on this topic has never been written giving the details for review.. It was published as a TWO PAGE "letter".

Rather hard -- even IF you're in the field -- to critique something this SWEEPING from "a letter".. Wonder why these details are not worth sharing with the general science audience?

Why? He's pretty much buried you with basic calculations that you aren't capable of.

Prove him wrong. You take sea water specifically, add pressure effects.....

Good luck with that.

" buried me with basic calculations"??? Hardly.. If I didn't understand the problem, I wouldn't have asked for the corrections..

There isn't enough information in that tweet of a "paper" to make the proper calculations..

 

[itfitzme]

1st cut? OK.. Now take sea water specifically. and add the pressure effects.. Good luck with the "more than 700m" description from this "letter"..

Part of the problem here -- is to my knowledge --- a PAPER on this topic has never been written giving the details for review.. It was published as a TWO PAGE "letter".

Rather hard -- even IF you're in the field -- to critique something this SWEEPING from "a letter".. Wonder why these details are not worth sharing with the general science audience?

Why? He's pretty much buried you with basic calculations that you aren't capable of.

Prove him wrong. You take sea water specifically, add pressure effects.....

Good luck with that.

" buried me with basic calculations"??? Hardly.. If I didn't understand the problem, I wouldn't have asked for the corrections..

There isn't enough information in that tweet of a "paper" to make the proper calculations..

You still haven't said anything. Why? Obviously because your not capable of doing it yourself. Talk is cheap.

 

[itfitzme]

I want to know how he came up with such a large number.
If the temperature of a volume of water rises 0.1 degree, you can calculate the energy involved.
He gave the energy, I want to know the volume of water and the temperature.
Should be pretty easy, unless Trenberth pulled the number out of his ass.

Here's an estimate as a sanity check.

Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3

This converts to 1.3 * 10^21 kg

Specific heat of water: deg C = 4.186 Joules / gram

Using an approximation of 10 * 10^22 Joules rise since 2000, this converts to a 0.32 deg C rise. That's easily measurable. In fact, the resolution of a thermometer that's specifically designed for this is probably 100 times that.

Thanks. It is rather shocking that such a large increase over the entire volume of our oceans wasn't discovered until so recently.

"Argo is an international ocean-observing program with the goal of deploying 3,000 drifting floats that gather temperature and salinity profiles in the upper 2,000 meters of the world’s oceans. "

"Prior to Argo, knowledge about the interior of the ocean came primarily from measurements taken by research ships, moored buoys, and commercial vessels. But, the immensity of the ocean and the limited area where these vessels and platforms took measurements left large data-sparse areas such as the southern oceans. Observations outside tropical waters were often restricted to periods of favorable weather. And, data collected were often limited to water temperatures in the upper 750 meters of the ocean, with depth inferred from elapsed time and a fall-rate equation used in conjunction with instruments “free-falling” through the ocean. The Argo program initiated an era of global oceanographic monitoring with quality-controlled, real-time data availability to improve knowledge of the world’s oceans."

Obviously, regardless of your take on AWG, measuring the temperature of the entire oceans is not simple.

You know, Todd, your constant pretending to be stupid had actually made you stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's an estimate as a sanity check.

Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3

This converts to 1.3 * 10^21 kg

Specific heat of water: deg C = 4.186 Joules / gram

Using an approximation of 10 * 10^22 Joules rise since 2000, this converts to a 0.32 deg C rise. That's easily measurable. In fact, the resolution of a thermometer that's specifically designed for this is probably 100 times that.

Thanks. It is rather shocking that such a large increase over the entire volume of our oceans wasn't discovered until so recently.

"Argo is an international ocean-observing program with the goal of deploying 3,000 drifting floats that gather temperature and salinity profiles in the upper 2,000 meters of the world’s oceans. "

"Prior to Argo, knowledge about the interior of the ocean came primarily from measurements taken by research ships, moored buoys, and commercial vessels. But, the immensity of the ocean and the limited area where these vessels and platforms took measurements left large data-sparse areas such as the southern oceans. Observations outside tropical waters were often restricted to periods of favorable weather. And, data collected were often limited to water temperatures in the upper 750 meters of the ocean, with depth inferred from elapsed time and a fall-rate equation used in conjunction with instruments “free-falling” through the ocean. The Argo program initiated an era of global oceanographic monitoring with quality-controlled, real-time data availability to improve knowledge of the world’s oceans."

Obviously, regardless of your take on AWG, measuring the temperature of the entire oceans is not simple.

You know, Todd, your constant pretending to be stupid had actually made you stupid.

And you don't just PRETEND to be stupid.. What is the HISTORICAL data based on?
Without looking at THAT SAMPLING and ACCURACY --- even a moron knows --- you can't prove an "increase"..

The calculations are based on VOLUMES.. The measured heat prior to Argo did not survey the ENTIRE VOLUME or SPACE of the oceans down to 2000m did it? So primitive calculations like these are meaningless. It's a VOLUME problem --- the 1st cut approx that Joe did is on the right track --- but far from an accurate estimate of the problem..

Keep talking man.. Makes you cheaper.... I HAVE told you valuable things here. Primarily that there IS NO STUDY.. At least not one explained in a full blown paper that others can confirm.. Why is THAT --- not important to you? Don't you think that a major PR assertion like this one --- deserves more than a couple pages of explanation?

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: Don't be surprised when the FULL STUDY comes out after the hype of the latest IPCC comes out.
Wouldn't be surprised if the results are toned WAAAAY the fuck down..

And then y'all can tell us how this wasn't a fabricated talking point to take the sting out of the latest IPCC debacle..

 

[PMZ]

I want to know how he came up with such a large number.
If the temperature of a volume of water rises 0.1 degree, you can calculate the energy involved.
He gave the energy, I want to know the volume of water and the temperature.
Should be pretty easy, unless Trenberth pulled the number out of his ass.

Here's an estimate as a sanity check.

Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3

This converts to 1.3 * 10^21 kg

Specific heat of water: deg C = 4.186 Joules / gram

Using an approximation of 10 * 10^22 Joules rise since 2000, this converts to a 0.32 deg C rise. That's easily measurable. In fact, the resolution of a thermometer that's specifically designed for this is probably 100 times that.

1st cut? OK.. Now take sea water specifically. and add the pressure effects.. Good luck with the "more than 700m" description from this "letter"..

Part of the problem here -- is to my knowledge --- a PAPER on this topic has never been written giving the details for review.. It was published as a TWO PAGE "letter".

Rather hard -- even IF you're in the field -- to critique something this SWEEPING from "a letter".. Wonder why these details are not worth sharing with the general science audience?

Here's the problem right here.

'' is to my knowledge''

Your knowledge is woefully inadequate to understand, much less contribute to, climate science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's an estimate as a sanity check.

Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3

This converts to 1.3 * 10^21 kg

Specific heat of water: deg C = 4.186 Joules / gram

Using an approximation of 10 * 10^22 Joules rise since 2000, this converts to a 0.32 deg C rise. That's easily measurable. In fact, the resolution of a thermometer that's specifically designed for this is probably 100 times that.

1st cut? OK.. Now take sea water specifically. and add the pressure effects.. Good luck with the "more than 700m" description from this "letter"..

Part of the problem here -- is to my knowledge --- a PAPER on this topic has never been written giving the details for review.. It was published as a TWO PAGE "letter".

Rather hard -- even IF you're in the field -- to critique something this SWEEPING from "a letter".. Wonder why these details are not worth sharing with the general science audience?

Here's the problem right here.

'' is to my knowledge''

Your knowledge is woefully inadequate to understand, much less contribute to, climate science.

It would only be "woefully inadequate" if THERE WAS a REAL PAPER describing all the details of this assertion.. If ya got one --- give it to me.. If you don't --- STFU...

It's a travesty of science to have assertions like "the ocean ate my warming" get this much attention without the authors actually describing their work in enough detail for others to validate and replicate the results..

HAS THAT HAPPENED??? I don't think so...

Especially since Trenberth has cited "increase ocean winds" as the mechanism for the abrupt mixing of the heat diving to the depths and NOT affecting surface temperature.. THAT --- hasn't happened either. So these clowns have no EXPLANATION for finding the missing warmth at depth..

 

[westwall]

Here's an estimate as a sanity check.

Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3

This converts to 1.3 * 10^21 kg

Specific heat of water: deg C = 4.186 Joules / gram

Using an approximation of 10 * 10^22 Joules rise since 2000, this converts to a 0.32 deg C rise. That's easily measurable. In fact, the resolution of a thermometer that's specifically designed for this is probably 100 times that.

1st cut? OK.. Now take sea water specifically. and add the pressure effects.. Good luck with the "more than 700m" description from this "letter"..

Part of the problem here -- is to my knowledge --- a PAPER on this topic has never been written giving the details for review.. It was published as a TWO PAGE "letter".

Rather hard -- even IF you're in the field -- to critique something this SWEEPING from "a letter".. Wonder why these details are not worth sharing with the general science audience?

Here's the problem right here.

'' is to my knowledge''

Your knowledge is woefully inadequate to understand, much less contribute to, climate science.

The same can be said of the climatologists. The level of their understanding is so painfully low that they can't even recreate experiments they ran themselves...

Interestingly enough, last year they asked for immunity from prosecution for their efforts.
Why oh why would anyone ask for that if they were legit?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/interactive/2012/06/11/kyoto-protocol-review-1312317180/

 

[P@triot]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

 

[PMZ]

1st cut? OK.. Now take sea water specifically. and add the pressure effects.. Good luck with the "more than 700m" description from this "letter"..

Part of the problem here -- is to my knowledge --- a PAPER on this topic has never been written giving the details for review.. It was published as a TWO PAGE "letter".

Rather hard -- even IF you're in the field -- to critique something this SWEEPING from "a letter".. Wonder why these details are not worth sharing with the general science audience?

Here's the problem right here.

'' is to my knowledge''

Your knowledge is woefully inadequate to understand, much less contribute to, climate science.

It would only be "woefully inadequate" if THERE WAS a REAL PAPER describing all the details of this assertion.. If ya got one --- give it to me.. If you don't --- STFU...

It's a travesty of science to have assertions like "the ocean ate my warming" get this much attention without the authors actually describing their work in enough detail for others to validate and replicate the results..

HAS THAT HAPPENED??? I don't think so...

Especially since Trenberth has cited "increase ocean winds" as the mechanism for the abrupt mixing of the heat diving to the depths and NOT affecting surface temperature.. THAT --- hasn't happened either. So these clowns have no EXPLANATION for finding the missing warmth at depth..

If you have some science that proves Trenberth wrong, step up to the plate.

If you are throwing the world's biggest cliche at us, you're not "comfortable" with climate science, tough shit. Go back to school. Read a book. Perform an experiment. Research the web. There is nobody who believes that you're more credible at climate science than the IPCC. That's major insanity.

 

[PMZ]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Another Dunning Kruger poster boy. Big oil has you completely wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like fiddle.

 

[loa]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

 

[westwall]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

Here's a dose of reality for you. Highest Antarctic sea ice extent ever recorded...... In a supposedly warming world I would like to hear anyone explain that....especially as all that heat is supposedly in the deep oceans... How would a physicist explain that little conundrum I wonder?

 

[freedombecki]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is @loa - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

Here's a dose of reality for you. Highest Antarctic sea ice extent ever recorded...... In a supposedly warming world I would like to hear anyone explain that....especially as all that heat is supposedly in the deep oceans... How would a physicist explain that little conundrum I wonder?

It serves the warmers right for snowing the world with errors of omission in order manipulate results with the target of procuring fat grants for themselves. That snow has come back to chill them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

More heat within the oceans= more moisture within the climate system.

Truthfully, Antarctica is a desert...So a little more warmth=more moisture within the atmosphere over it = more snow.

The problem with the arctic this year is more clouds(storm systems). We just didn't see the arctic dipole develop as we do normally. More clouds = less solar energy making it to the surface to warm the arctic oceans. Truth be told 1 or 2 degree's means a lot when you consider sea ice extent...

You may say that a warmer ocean = less sea ice. BUT the forces behind reality is more then just temperature but also precipitation rate. REMEMBER during the winter there's little solar energy one way or the other, so the precipitation is so far out powering the slightly warmer oceans for the Antarctic that it allows it to grow.

 

[P@triot]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

So no comment on the link? How do you explain that?

 

[westwall]

More heat within the oceans= more moisture within the climate system.

Truthfully, Antarctica is a desert...So a little more warmth=more moisture within the atmosphere over it = more snow.

The problem with the arctic this year is more clouds(storm systems). We just didn't see the arctic dipole develop as we do normally. More clouds = less solar energy making it to the surface to warm the arctic oceans. Truth be told 1 or 2 degree's means a lot when you consider sea ice extent...

You may say that a warmer ocean = less sea ice. BUT the forces behind reality is more then just temperature but also precipitation rate. REMEMBER during the winter there's little solar energy one way or the other, so the precipitation is so far out powering the slightly warmer oceans for the Antarctic that it allows it to grow.

Except the "missing heat" is supposedly so deep in the oceans it can't be found. Thus, logically, it can't affect the air above it, now can it? Further the RT of water vapor is 9 days. That means that after you have frozen the moisture out of the air in the first 10 days (I'm giving you extra time) you still have 160 odd days where that no longer applies.

Add to that the simple fact that the air over almost all of Antarctica is exceptionally dry and your argument holds no water. You'll have to try harder Matthew....

 

[P@triot]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Another Dunning Kruger poster boy. Big oil has you completely wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like fiddle.

The link is there my friend. READ it. How do you explain that?

Seems to me [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] big "green energy" corporations have you wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like a fiddle. Al Gore is laughing all the way to his multi-billion dollar bank account...

This is the Y2K scare tactic all over again. Al Gore knew that liberals never learn from history...

 

[PMZ]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

One has to wonder why people who pretend interest in science are able to ignore all of the climate science uncovered by the IPCC in the last 25 years and try to discredit them and the science itself by chasing red herrings of the trivial sort. What do you suppose is the common source of these trivialities like antarctic ice which nobody expects is in any way connected to AGW?

Some common source is feeding the misinformation to the cult and they are lapping it up like it made sense.

Ignore science and embrace pseudoscience. How bizarre.

 

[PMZ]

I

The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Another Dunning Kruger poster boy. Big oil has you completely wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like fiddle.

The link is there my friend. READ it. How do you explain that?

Seems to me [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] big "green energy" corporations have you wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like a fiddle. Al Gore is laughing all the way to his multi-billion dollar bank account...

This is the Y2K scare tactic all over again. Al Gore knew that liberals never learn from history...

The most compelling science the denialists can come up with is that Al Gore is rich and Antarctica is cold. Both evidence and explanation of the ease of misleading them.