brenthutch 444
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,174
lawrocket******So then you concede that there is a 'hiatus'?
How can there be a hiatus if the water is getting warmer?
Because the focus has been on the lower troposphere.
.
"Global" includes a lot more than the lower troposphere.
PS you can get medication for your constipation. It WILL come out in the end.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
No shit?
Issue: if the world is getting warmer, but as a matter of physics it makes no difference at all to terrestrial life, then what's the point of doing anything about it?
As I mentioned earlier, assuming this to be true, hasn't nature just mitigated any possible damage by sequestering the excess heat away? I mean, let's look at science here instead of dogma. The scientific implications of putting all that energy in a huge place with massive specific heat.
This isn't even a new concept. Recall the literature of 10 years ago. It takes a LONG time for the ocean to warm. Experiment: put a pot of water on an electric stove. Due to specific heat, it takes a lot of energy to raise its temperature. Then there is lag between heating the bottom of the water and mixing with the top through vertical currents or deep horizontal motions.
It takes decades just to heat the top couple of thousand feet. And centuries/millenia to heat the rest of the depths of the ocean and mix. Look at the ocean like a flywheel. The principles of thermal inertia will apply.
This was understood at the early stages of climate science. That's why Siberia was the key test area. Under AGW theory, the place too look for signal with minimum noise is where it is really cold and dry (one in the same when you get to -40) and where there wasn't the influence of the ocean flywheel. Look for warming in the winter. And they found it.
It's why we don't look for evidence of global warming in the oceans. Why we don't look for the dignal of global warming where there is water vapor (which also has thermal inertia).
We look where water isn't. And especially in the winter. Where it's really cold. Which is where they used to look. And they found it. But it hasn't met with the expectations of how much. They've been hoping for more and not seeing it.
So now they look in the place where they knew all along heat goes but doesn't show and they can't get a signal through the noise. The ocean.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Issue: if the world is getting warmer, but as a matter of physics it makes no difference at all to terrestrial life, then what's the point of doing anything about it?
As I mentioned earlier, assuming this to be true, hasn't nature just mitigated any possible damage by sequestering the excess heat away? I mean, let's look at science here instead of dogma. The scientific implications of putting all that energy in a huge place with massive specific heat.
This isn't even a new concept. Recall the literature of 10 years ago. It takes a LONG time for the ocean to warm. Experiment: put a pot of water on an electric stove. Due to specific heat, it takes a lot of energy to raise its temperature. Then there is lag between heating the bottom of the water and mixing with the top through vertical currents or deep horizontal motions.
It takes decades just to heat the top couple of thousand feet. And centuries/millenia to heat the rest of the depths of the ocean and mix. Look at the ocean like a flywheel. The principles of thermal inertia will apply.
This was understood at the early stages of climate science. That's why Siberia was the key test area. Under AGW theory, the place too look for signal with minimum noise is where it is really cold and dry (one in the same when you get to -40) and where there wasn't the influence of the ocean flywheel. Look for warming in the winter. And they found it.
It's why we don't look for evidence of global warming in the oceans. Why we don't look for the dignal of global warming where there is water vapor (which also has thermal inertia).
We look where water isn't. And especially in the winter. Where it's really cold. Which is where they used to look. And they found it. But it hasn't met with the expectations of how much. They've been hoping for more and not seeing it.
So now they look in the place where they knew all along heat goes but doesn't show and they can't get a signal through the noise. The ocean.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 444
lawrocketNo shit?
Issue: if the world is getting warmer, but as a matter of physics it makes no difference at all to terrestrial life, then what's the point of doing anything about it?
The whole "doing something about it" IS the point. The absence of AGW, would make those windmills look pretty silly, and that is a pill too big for many to swallow. BTW that is why kallend refuses to let us know what it would take to invalidate AGW theory.
kallend 2,174
lawrocketNo shit?
Issue: if the world is getting warmer, but as a matter of physics it makes no difference at all to terrestrial life, then what's the point of doing anything about it?
Have I asked anyone to do anything?
The planet doesn't care, and I shall be long dead before the US coastal cities become uninhabitable.
People who live on barrier islands or in cities below sea level get no sympathy from me.
See post #252 of this thread.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The whole point of the AGW discussion has been about all of the nasty effects on humanity and ways to prevent those. Namely by reducing atmospheric carbon emissions.
So when we have things that don't fit the projections, it turns into evidence of a problem. Because it turns out that there is settled science, but that's not even close to the whole story. Because a computer model is only as good as our understanding of the dynamic processes it simulates. And when the estimated lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is between 25 and 150 years, one can see that a model can certainly have problems with being off by, oh, 800%.
Science advances when predictions are proven wrong. But only so long as those whose predictions are proven wrong are willing to admit it. I'm seeing mounting evidence that the climate community didn't necessarily get it "wrong" so much as they greatly overplayed their hand.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
So when we have things that don't fit the projections, it turns into evidence of a problem. Because it turns out that there is settled science, but that's not even close to the whole story. Because a computer model is only as good as our understanding of the dynamic processes it simulates. And when the estimated lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is between 25 and 150 years, one can see that a model can certainly have problems with being off by, oh, 800%.
Science advances when predictions are proven wrong. But only so long as those whose predictions are proven wrong are willing to admit it. I'm seeing mounting evidence that the climate community didn't necessarily get it "wrong" so much as they greatly overplayed their hand.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites