RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming

RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 3:31:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I don't care and it is off topic. What I wrote may require an explanation to be understood. I am not interested in the capacity of the earth to store energy. Whatever is stored is no longer in circulation. It is no longer a part of the equation. It might explain global cooling, but not global warming. I am not discussing global cooling. Such a discussion is incapable of splitting the atom as I put it; hence, such talk is pointless. It goes no where.

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 3:32:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 So, another who doesn't understand basic Physics. "Heat rises" within relatively homogenous fluids (gasses or liquids), IF there is colder material around or above because Most 'hot' fluids expand compared to their cooler volume. (Boyles Law, except for water between 0ºC and 4ºC, where water reaches it's maximum density, which keeps the ocean bottom from freezing!) Same mass, bigger volume, it's density is less and rises till surrounded by similar density (Temp) fluid, or reaches the surface/top of the fluid reservoir. See: Thermosiphon and Convection. "Hotter" ocean water would rise through the layers above, IF it were hotter THAN THEY ARE. Which isn't the case. The bottom layer in unexpected areas is showing warming as are unprecedented warmings of certain mid level waters. We have few and recent direct records, ocean surface levels (Height) imply water temps, however, and Have been quite stable. Till recently. (No balancing cooling elsewhere noted, warming areas/volumes are Big.) NONE are yet hotter than the warming layers above them! How could they be if the heat is moving down? Surface water warms and cools faster than deeper layers, being exposed far more to the heat engines, the atmosphere and direct Sunlight, which is the significance of seeing unexpected warming deeper than before. Warmer surface waters were expected. Heat is moving deeper faster than we thought it would. It ISN"T warming the lower waters to higher temps than the water above. So, no overturning, no convection. Next strawman, please. You may be right, but without working the actual equations, special conditions may exist where the laws of common sense break down. What is true at the surface of the earth may not be true in the deep oceans simply because the pressures are so high. It is like trying to understand what is occurring on Jupiter. It can humble us. We thought we knew so much, but didn't. If the equations were derived purely through empirical observations, then even the equations may fail you because you need data that is representative of the conditions. I don't care and it is off topic. WHERE did you get the idea that current Oceanography is derived from 'common sense'? It's a very empirical enterprise. Again, you are 'authoritatively opinionating' from almost total ignorance of both seminal and current scientific work on the subject. The ocean deeps don't have pressures that are difficult to duplicate in the laboratory or explore with manned or unmanned instrumented vehicles. PEOPLE and instruments have been to the deepest of Earth's oceans and directly observed and sampled what's there. This thread as a whole is a classic example of the observation someone made of some maroon, "You'd have to have gone to college to say something that ignorant." Your appearance of an education betrays you more than anyone else. We have vast ignorance of the life in the mid and deep oceans. The physics of water under Earth Ocean pressures isn't controversial and hasn't been for awhile. (The details of the precise conditions that may produce sudden 'Catastrophe Theory' type changes in ocean floor Frozen Clatherates ARE of intense interest, they possibly being one of the positive feedback mechanisms that are feared to be part of the next centuries GW.) Ocean currents remain 'inadequately characterized' for any real satisfaction though most major flows seem well mapped. (See: Atlantic Conveyer, which actually goes from the North Sea to near Indonesia along the ocean floor) The details of the Southern Ocean are still under major study as the exact currents and more important, their changes with warming and Antarctic Ice Shelf and glacial melting will be hugely deterministic of how GW unfolds over the coming century. A note on the 'convection' strawman. Current measurements are persuasive that the observed ocean level rise to present is about half fresh water melt from previously sequestered-on-land water in glaciers and Greenland/Antarctic ice caps and half net density change from what ocean waters have warmed. This isn't Fox News or Republican National Committee fantasies, it's ethical workers with careers devoted to going out and Seeing what is there and making the most reliable and accurate measurements current technology can attain then working with myriad other similar minds and the best tools extant to find patterns and meaning in the numbers brought back from the real world. If the implications of the numbers being seen are 'inconvenient' for you, think how inconvenient the reality they portend is going to be?

leonine -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 3:39:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 So, another who doesn't understand basic Physics. "Heat rises" within relatively homogenous fluids (gasses or liquids), IF there is colder material around or above because Most 'hot' fluids expand compared to their cooler volume. (Boyles Law, except for water between 0ºC and 4ºC, where water reaches it's maximum density, which keeps the ocean bottom from freezing!) Same mass, bigger volume, it's density is less and rises till surrounded by similar density (Temp) fluid, or reaches the surface/top of the fluid reservoir. See: Thermosiphon and Convection. "Hotter" ocean water would rise through the layers above, IF it were hotter THAN THEY ARE. Which isn't the case. The bottom layer in unexpected areas is showing warming as are unprecedented warmings of certain mid level waters. We have few and recent direct records, ocean surface levels (Height) imply water temps, however, and Have been quite stable. Till recently. (No balancing cooling elsewhere noted, warming areas/volumes are Big.) NONE are yet hotter than the warming layers above them! How could they be if the heat is moving down? Surface water warms and cools faster than deeper layers, being exposed far more to the heat engines, the atmosphere and direct Sunlight, which is the significance of seeing unexpected warming deeper than before. Warmer surface waters were expected. Heat is moving deeper faster than we thought it would. It ISN"T warming the lower waters to higher temps than the water above. So, no overturning, no convection. Next strawman, please. You may be right, but without working the actual equations, special conditions may exist where the laws of common sense break down. What is true at the surface of the earth may not be true in the deep oceans simply because the pressures are so high. It is like trying to understand what is occurring on Jupiter. It can humble us. We thought we knew so much, but didn't. If the equations were derived purely through empirical observations, then even the equations may fail you because you need data that is representative of the conditions. I don't care and it is off topic. I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that you are a troll. You ask for simple explanations, you are given them in clear elementary terms suitable for a first grade class, and you complain because they are not expressed as quantum mysteries and astrophysics. If you don't want to learn, but to show off your mastery of technobabble, you have come to the wrong forum. There are people here who understand this stuff, and can tell when you are faking it with impressive sounding terms you don't really know the meaning of.

MistressConduct -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:05:03 AM)
I am really struggling to follow this thread. I am not sure what the OP is after. It is almost like OP is just throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. I am a former United States Air Force meteorologist. My main schooling is atmospheric physics but I am also schooled in hydro physics and astro physics. If you have a precise question OP I would love to help... If you are just going to throw stuff out I'm not wasting my time. Offer is there if you want it.

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:09:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I don't care and it is off topic. What I wrote may require an explanation to be understood. I am not interested in the capacity of the earth to store energy. Whatever is stored is no longer in circulation. It is no longer a part of the equation. It might explain global cooling, but not global warming. I am not discussing global cooling. Such a discussion is incapable of splitting the atom as I put it; hence, such talk is pointless. It goes no where. This is wrong on so many levels, I'm baffled where to begin. But. . . Where did you get the idea 'heat storage' implies any stasis? Money in a bank that isn't 'used' may be not in circulation. "Heat" is a concept we use to analytically deal with the temperatures in the ocean and the atmosphere, endlessly dynamic bodies of fluids all seeking unattainable equilibrium. Heat isn't 'stored' in the biosphere like beer in the basement cooler or spare change in a piggy bank, it is input and output constantly. Just as the molecules of your body. (One recent estimate is Every atom in your body is changed out within 7 years. Most a lot faster.) Your shape and function may change far slower. Like a used car that gets new parts all the time but still is the 'same car'. The total heat is Relatively constant in unchanging times. Those aren't now. More heat is coming into the biosphere than is leaving. NONE is static in between that entrance and exit from the process. The very definition of 'heat' is movement of molecules. There may be stagnant pockets of Ocean water, I can't think of any but I'm just a amateur student and Oceanography isn't even in my top 3. There are No stagnant parts of the atmosphere outside of cloistered buildings and caverns in the Earth and heat is still moving through all of those. A better analogy might be the Heat Budget of the planet's biosphere is like a leaky balloon constantly being blown up to stay inflated. The Sun is always inputting heat. Heat is always escaping. The 'balloon' is not empty, it has a complicated internal structure that holds heat more or less well in different places against 'leaking'. The added carbon from fossil fuels in the atmosphere is slowing down one of the major leaks out of the balloon but isn't slowing the input from the Sun. Heat doesn't 'disappear' when 'stored', the balloon just gets hotter. No situation is static. If it gets too hot (or 'we' come to a rational decision to act more responsibly), humans will stop burning carbon fuels, (We May even disappear) and the system dynamics will change. The longer term glacial cycles may be too strong for current civilization to counter, unlikely in the future if technology isn't abandoned in a general catastrophe. From your claim above, you simply Must study the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics (Cliff's Notes version: You have to play, you can't win, you can't break even.) before you attempt to engage in these discussions. It's like not knowing what a yard is or a touchdown or what the different positions are and still trying to tell people about American Football. You only appear to know the language of Physics. Listen to you a bit and that impression vanishes. You know a few of the terms. You understand almost none and less of the relationships behind the concepts. This fixes! Arrogance would be the only obstacle? The information is certainly everywhere. Wikipedia is not a Liberal conspiracy!

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:17:47 AM)
Having had more time to think about it, heat does not in fact rise. Our sun is an example. Yes, technically heat rises, but it takes thousands if not millions of years for heat from the interior of the sun to reach the surface. The temperature nor the differences in temperature implies that the process occurs quickly.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressConduct I am really struggling to follow this thread. I am not sure what the OP is after. It is almost like OP is just throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. I am a former United States Air Force meteorologist. My main schooling is atmospheric physics but I am also schooled in hydro physics and astro physics. If you have a precise question OP I would love to help... If you are just going to throw stuff out I'm not wasting my time. Offer is there if you want it. I hate to rain on your parade, but people such as yourself were blissfully unaware of the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the upper atmosphere. You don't get to play teacher here to the extent what you wrote suggests. You are making a pure appeal to authority where no such authority exists.

Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:35:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I like to hear the beanie wearers try to tell people that; "heat gets trapped deep in the oceans." Isn't it one of the basic rules of thermodynamics that "heat rises?" If it can rise out of the earth in the form of a volcano it can certainly rise out of the ocean much easier. Listening to the tin foil hat warming crew is like trying to question a sociopath. You catch them on one thing and they cover it up and go onto the next. Like playing "whack a mole." Engaging in "Political Correctness" or trying to preach "Global Warming" should be misdemeanors. I like to hear the scientifically ignorant who don't know that water has one of the highest heat storage capacities per gram of any naturally occurring substance. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html Liquid Ammonia, Liquid Helium and Liquid Hydrogen are higher but I think you'll admit that most folk are unlikely to encounter them.[:D]

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:38:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Having had more time to think about it, heat does not in fact rise. Our sun is an example. Yes, technically heat rises, but it takes thousands if not millions of years for heat from the interior of the sun to reach the surface. The temperature nor the differences in temperature implies that the process occurs quickly. Obviously not enough time. . . Wrong again, heat doesn't rise, uneven heat levels in Boyle's Law fluids within a gravity gradient cause convection. Convection rate (Whether up or down) is a function of heat differential, fluid coefficient of expansion, heat transfer rate in or out of the volume of temperature differential, fluid viscosity and at least one nagging item I'm forgetting? Solar Convection so far observed (implied from surface visual measurements and magnetic line dynamics, greatly changed with the latest set of Sun observing polar alignment and other space robot instruments) match the familiar convection equations that apply to familiar temps and densities in our biosphere. I have the motto for your Coat of Arms: It isn't what you know, it isn't what you don't. It's what you know that isn't so. OK, it's what you don't know, too.

MistressConduct -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: MistressConduct I am really struggling to follow this thread. I am not sure what the OP is after. It is almost like OP is just throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. I am a former United States Air Force meteorologist. My main schooling is atmospheric physics but I am also schooled in hydro physics and astro physics. If you have a precise question OP I would love to help... If you are just going to throw stuff out I'm not wasting my time. Offer is there if you want it. I hate to rain on your parade, but people such as yourself were blissfully unaware of the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the upper atmosphere. You don't get to play teacher here to the extent what you wrote suggests. You are making a pure appeal to authority where no such authority exists. Ummm Excuse me? ... People such as myself? You do not know one thing about me other than what I have stated. Yet somehow I am unaware of something that was public knowledge when I was a kid? You are a joke and troll. This whole thread shows your ignorance. You are talking about things that are way over your head like you are an expert. The moment someone calls "BS" on you... you redirect or deflect. Much like you telling what I am aware or unaware of. You Sir are a dummy... Good day!

Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:41:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Have you bothered to read my post #6 on this thread? I'll check it out. You asked a question, I answered it and yet you keep prattling down the wrong roads because you didn't fucking read it. When you first asked this question, I answered but your ramblings afterward reminded me that it was late on Saturday night wink wink. You are, however still rambling so I realize now that it wasn't a sobriety issue that was making you post as you do. Here's a hint. When you ask a question, LISTEN to the fucking answer before you ramble more.

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 4:44:21 AM)
quote: ...MistressConduct... Thank you, Mistress. I'll accept your lead and stop wasting time here.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 5:18:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Have you bothered to read my post #6 on this thread? I'll check it out. You asked a question, I answered it ... To say you answered it is conceited. You made contributions to the thread. It was a good post and an interesting analogy, but also at the same time useless because it doesn't address an important precondition. Before one can discuss the effects of an excess of calories can have, one must first have an excess. Half of your post was not as pertinent to the topic as you might have thought. The other half provided some background which I am grateful for, but nothing more.

Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 5:25:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Have you bothered to read my post #6 on this thread? I'll check it out. You asked a question, I answered it ... To say you answered it is conceited. You made contributions to the thread. It was a good post and an interesting analogy, but also at the same time useless because it doesn't address an important precondition. Before one can discuss the effects of an excess of calories can have, one must first have an excess. Half of your post was not as pertinent to the topic as you might have thought. The other half provided some background which I am grateful for, but nothing more. You asked about the principles behind it and I answered. You didn't bother to read it, preferring instead to blather on in a rather disjointed fashion. Now you have decided to backpedal. In all seriousness, I thought you were posting drunk Saturday night. Now, I see you weren't.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 1:40:58 PM)
There is a difference between engineering common sense and science fact. I am shocked that so few of you know this.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 1:49:42 PM)
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/OriginalNipper.jpg[/image] It is a brave new world for you I see.

mnottertail -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 2:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM There is a difference between engineering common sense and science fact. I am shocked that so few of you know this. NO, not really.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 2:25:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM There is a difference between engineering common sense and science fact. I am shocked that so few of you know this. NO, not really. Unfortunately, this is germane. The scientific illiteracy that exists even among degreed professionals. I am aware of it in the abstract, but it is shocking for me to see. You have more experience at this sort of thing than I do.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 2:56:53 PM)
Could our lack of scientific literacy doom us as a species? Sadly, it could. Under a dictatorship things are simple. You convince the dictator who is hopefully educated and capable of reason and your job is done. The dictator tells the people what to think. In a democracy, people have to be able to think for themselves.

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 3:35:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Could our lack of scientific literacy doom us as a species? Sadly, it could. Under a dictatorship things are simple. You convince the dictator who is hopefully educated and capable of reason and your job is done. The dictator tells the people what to think. In a democracy, people have to be able to think for themselves. The irony that you of all people are complaining of scientific illiteracy is stunning. Or the birth of self-awareness that might lead to your acquiring a real understanding of the Natural Sciences? An intimidating job from where you now are, but you Might pull it off? Best wishes.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125