You should give the idiot who just learn climate change isn't a china hoax a copy of that "science" book.
The present United States government agrees with me. I prefer that to the the UN with their hands out demanding trillions of dollars from the US.
You somehow think that a single person is the United States Government? There's a reason that Obama didn't bring the Paris Treaty to the Senate for ratification and you know what it is. The Paris boondoggle is not binding and i bet will be rescinded early. YMMV
I often agree with the liberals on this board but I am not sold on climate change. I am for green alternative energy, which will help us with (economic) security and environments, but I do not care for the alarmist rhetoric coming out from some quarters of the liberal universe. I guess this is what the conservatives are talking about when they decry "fake outrage,"
All tobacco research shows is that science can be bought. Something I realized a long time ago.Rather counterproductive to argue the finer points of science with people who think the tobacco research model is the way to go.
Agnotology. Sure, some people can be bought, but it's people in public relations that drive the twisted message and sow doubt in the mind of the public. Driving cultural ignorance serves their end and divides opinion on public policy. You see this all the time when people quickly dismiss the body of scientific experts here based on false notions that everyone is willing to sacrifice their integrity at some point or the "we don't know enough yet so we shouldn't do anything" attitudes.All tobacco research shows is that science can be bought. Something I realized a long time ago.
The problem is scale. At different scales different equations come into play. There is no unified theory of physics that can account for different phenomenon at different scales. Thermodynamics equations that work in a lab don't work for the whole planet.Climate change is thermodynamic models. Physics gives zero shits whether people believe it or not.
This is complete bullshit.The problem is scale. At different scales different equations come into play. There is no unified theory of physics that can account for different phenomenon at different scales. Thermodynamics equations that work in a lab don't work for the whole planet.
As an example... they were expecting Ocean temperatures to rise above 30C when they started measuring Ocean temperatures, particularly around the equator. What they found in reality is that no matter how warm the equator got, it really does not go beyond 30C at the surface. The water evaporates, clouds reflect sunlight, and it rains. Overall... a cooling process. The area of the Ocean that is hot expanded, sure, but it just does not go past 30C at the specific temperature, pressure, and gravity on the planet on a very large scale.
I laugh when I see conversions like "The increased energy in the ocean is equivalent to a kajillion gigjillions of atomic bombs" because of course it is, its the whole planet. Very small increases in the ocean temperature combined with the high heat capacity and (hello... the volume of the whole ocean) means the numbers involved are enormous... and probably out of their proper scale where the equations are accurate.
Whats remarkable about the climate is actually its stability where people are arguing about small perturbations, but there also seem to be quite a few homeostatic/stabilizing mechanisms as well and I feel like climate scientists are only paid to present doom and gloom and are less likely to focus research on stabilizing feedback mechanisms. And indeed if that is the case you'd assume they overshoot their projections, which is what they do chronically time and time again.
I have a question for you.
How much heat is absorbed by the landmass of the planet at the interface between the ocean and seafloor if the ocean has increased in temperature outside of equilibrium?
Believe me no such data exists.
Generally speaking under Oceanic pressures the Ocean floor is always 4C. I'm sure there are parts of the ocean floor above that and as ocean temperature increases there is going to be some of that heat going into the crust. The equator hot spots increase and the seafloor coldspots decrease. More heat will transfer into the seafloor. I feel this is moot because of how large of a heatsink that is. Ocean floor temperature data is laughable at best.
You don't have to worry just about the heat capacity of the Ocean, but also that of the crust/planet itself. Its not a beaker of water, everything is interacting. It also doesn't boil down to a simple energy in energy out formula for the balance of energy between the core/crust/landmass/ocean because its more complicated than that.
Basically I think there are more heat reservoirs than climate science realizes and they blow out of proportion the effects of heat on the atmosphere, which being 26 miles of air... is the most wildly fluctuating part of the whole system. Everything is about how it affects the atmosphere. In reality I think the atmosphere by mass being such a tiny part of the system, is actually the least important. Geological processes interact with chemical and thermodynamic processes in the climate. They aren't separated like they are in a lab or broken down as a singular science.
Damn, i knew you were going to unleash the cut and paste spam machine. Nothing like a flood of unattributed charts, graphs etc. to drive people away from a topic.The problem is scale. At different scales different equations come into play. There is no unified theory of physics that can account for different phenomenon at different scales. Thermodynamics equations that work in a lab don't work for the whole planet.
As an example... they were expecting Ocean temperatures to rise above 30C when they started measuring Ocean temperatures, particularly around the equator. What they found in reality is that no matter how warm the equator got, it really does not go beyond 30C at the surface. The water evaporates, clouds reflect sunlight, and it rains. Overall... a cooling process. The area of the Ocean that is hot expanded, sure, but it just does not go past 30C at the specific temperature, pressure, and gravity on the planet on a very large scale.
I laugh when I see conversions like "The increased energy in the ocean is equivalent to a kajillion gigjillions of atomic bombs" because of course it is, its the whole planet. Very small increases in the ocean temperature combined with the high heat capacity and (hello... the volume of the whole ocean) means the numbers involved are enormous... and probably out of their proper scale where the equations are accurate.
Whats remarkable about the climate is actually its stability where people are arguing about small perturbations, but there also seem to be quite a few homeostatic/stabilizing mechanisms as well and I feel like climate scientists are only paid to present doom and gloom and are less likely to focus research on stabilizing feedback mechanisms. And indeed if that is the case you'd assume they overshoot their projections, which is what they do chronically time and time again.
I have a question for you.
How much heat is absorbed by the landmass of the planet at the interface between the ocean and seafloor if the ocean has increased in temperature outside of equilibrium?
Believe me no such data exists. Generally speaking under Oceanic pressures the Ocean floor is always 4C. I'm sure there are parts of the ocean floor above that and as ocean temperature increases there is going to be some of that heat going into the crust. The equator hot spots increase and the seafloor coldspots decrease. More heat will transfer into the seafloor. I feel this is moot because of how large of a heatsink that is. Ocean floor temperature data is laughable at best.
You don't have to worry just about the heat capacity of the Ocean, but also that of the crust/planet itself. Its not a beaker of water, everything is interacting. It also doesn't boil down to a simple energy in energy out formula for the balance of energy between the core/crust/landmass/ocean because its more complicated than that.
Basically I think there are more heat reservoirs than climate science realizes and they blow out of proportion the effects of heat on the atmosphere, which being 26 miles of air... is the most wildly fluctuating part of the whole system. Everything is about how it affects the atmosphere. In reality I think the atmosphere by mass being such a tiny part of the system, is actually the least important. Geological processes interact with chemical and thermodynamic processes in the climate. They aren't separated like they are in a lab or broken down as a singular science.
Damn, i knew you were going to unleash the cut and paste spam machine. Nothing like a flood of unattributed charts, graphs etc. to drive people away from a topic.
On the scale we are talking there's only three sources of heat:Yea but whats the source for the change in total heat content?
The geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts.[8] This comes to 0.087 watt/square metre, which represents only 0.027% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation.[9]
Earth's energy imbalanceEdit
If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing energy flux, the result is an energy imbalance, that amounts to net heat added to or lost by the planet (if the incoming flux is larger or smaller than the outgoing respectively). Earth's energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats have detected an accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 to be 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m².[11] Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ± 0.17 W/m².[12]
Comparing a theoretical to a theoretical yields close looking results.
Also a dead planet is much easier to study in the theoretical than one with a climate like the earth. You actually can't compare Mar's systems to Earth's systems. Thats the problem.
The thermodynamics completely control the climate on mars. Its a dead planet with no chemical, or even geological processes. Thats what I'm saying, there are more processes on earth controlling the climate than just thermodynamics. The temperature would not have a stable homeostatic basis without all the other contributions to the climate from biological life, chemical processes, and geological processes.
Whats the highs and lows on mars eh?
Thats how much of an effect all those pesky details and positive/negative feedback loops have on earths climate.
Simply having a large body of water at all changes the equation significantly.
The sun we actually directly measure.
We also directly measure the outgoing radiation
When we compare the two they suggest that the Earth is receiving more energy than is leaving.
Sidenote:
The issue I find with that statement... hasn't that always been imbalanced?
What we're doing with CO2 pushes it further, but we would never expect to observe an equilibrium there, correct?
I work for a Republican mayor who believes in climate change and thinks Trump is an idiot. So there.
Sidenote:
The issue I find with that statement... hasn't that always been imbalanced?
What we're doing with CO2 pushes it further, but we would never expect to observe an equilibrium there, correct?
Yep those are all the assumptions alright that fail to accurately model the climate time and time again .On the scale we are talking there's only three sources of heat:
- The Sun
- Heat left from the formation of the Earth
- Heat of radioactive decay
The last two do not fluctuate and are minuscule compared to the sun and an order of magnitude smaller than Earths energy imbalance.
The sun we actually directly measure.
(I'll hide the evidence so as not trigger imported taj)
We also directly measure the outgoing radiation:
When we compare the two they suggest that the Earth is receiving more energy than is leaving.
When we add up the energy stored in the land, ocean and atmosphere we see increasing amounts of heat. Confirming an imbalance.
(Wiki)
Most of the data confirming climate change is directly measured.
For other planets we directly measure the temperature with telescopes or probes.
Sure can. The difference help show the impact of an atmosphere.
Since you aren't using the commonly accepted definition of thermodynamics you need to clarify what you mean by processes.
All chemical process are driven either by the energy originally from the sun or geothermal heatflux.
Same with biological changes. They change the Earths albedo or they change the chemical composition of the atmosphere all of which are measurable and being measured.
Per NASA
Look why don't you check out this link to the American Chemical Society Climate Science Toolkit.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html
It goes into detail on how the climate works and is measured.
Well sure. But the problem is it's been imbalanced in one direction for last 60 years and most of the last 150.
Once more from the orbital dynamics you'd kind of expect it to be more neutral or negative.
Give me a specific prediction by mainstream climate science that was inaccurate.Yep those are all the assumptions alright that fail to accurately model the climate time and time again .