ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

You need to get out more.

As a seaman I regularly refer to HIRLAM .05 atmospheric modeling and I find it extremely accurate.

I have no doubt that on a global scale there are unknowns that must be understood before computer modeling can be accurate.

Only a fool would discount the work of thousands of atmospheric scientists.

http://

 

If there is a functional postal service in BACK, leave your forwarding address and we’ll make sure all the Christmas retailers send you their catalogs.

 

WASHINGTON POST | European carbon market in trouble

 

Again you completely misread my post, and clearly do not know what I am talking about; what you are referring to is a near term forecast, which is pretty good for a few days out. That has nothing to do with the long term global climate, of which humans are clueless. That is an easy mistake to make, but one does not equate to the other.

Our own National Weather Service tracks their ability to accurately forecast the weather. At 24 hours out they are pretty good, at 48 hours out they are hardly any better than random guessing (though they may have added a few more hours by now). So despite billions of dollars spent on lots of weather satellites and supercoumputers, they are only a few more hours out with accurate forecasts than we were 30 years ago. The good information they do have is also much more readily accessible through such service as you mention. This near term information is vital to save lives and to have emergency services ready to respond if necessary, hence the heavy investment.

Despite that, it is completely useless for a week, let alone 30 days out. But the Climate Change propagandists want to make you think they can predict global temperatures over the next 100 years? this is laughable. They might have some credibility if we could forecast out perhaps 6 months or even a year. But at best we are at about 36 hours of accurate forecasts. they sometimes have "long term" forecasts up to 10 days out, but they know (and our common sense experience says) that it is not accurate for more than a few days at best.

 

You're making the basic mistake that many deniers make: you're conflating weather with climate. They're two entirely different fields.

There isn't a bookie in the world who can tell you whether the next roll of the dice will turn up snake-eyes or not, or how many rolls it will take to get one. But I guarandamntee they can tell you with remarkable accuracy how many of the next 1000 rolls will be snake-eyes... long-term trends are a completely different animal than short-term forecasts.

For a simple-minded analogy, ask a weatherman whether next Tuesday will be warmer or cooler than today. Maybe his answer will be accurate; maybe it won't (although they're getting a lot better). But ask him whether the average temperature for August will be warmer or cooler than the average for this month, and you can pretty much take his answer to the bank.

 

what is the matter with you Troy, I know the difference, and I stated so. It was Michael who seemed to think because he gets good data HIRLAM that he thought they are good at predicting climate.

I have not denied anything, we do not have enough information to know one way or the other. The Earth's climate will change, no question about it. Human activity likely have some impact, the extent of which is unknowable at this point. That is the ONLY accurate thing anyone can say, anyone who says otherwise is lying, or repeating the lies of others.

 

To claim we're so short on information that the future is completely unknowable takes a remarkably large set of blinders. You have to successfully ignore what something like 97% of scientists worldwide have acknowledged as enough evidence to base a decision on.

Which is the point that Alan was making: you personally might not believe there's enough data to make predictions possible, but most scientists actually know better.

 

Let me try this again. You claim that short-term weather forecasts getting more unreliable as they're extended over longer periods of time somehow proves that no one knows what the future is regarding climate. But weather isn't climate. The fact that a meteorologist can't tell me today what the high temperature is going to be on August 21st, or whether it's going to rain on that day, has squat to do with predictions made by climatologists about long-range climate trends.

And when you keep carrying on about all the things you believe are 'unknowable,' you're ignoring the very real possibility that a lot of dedicated professional scientists might know more than you do.

In fact, that's more than just possible. It's highly probable.

 

lets put it this way; I look at the same data and compare it with other data and see no recongizible pattern. And the one who says "trust me, there is pattern, you just are not smart enough", and that one wants to get his hands in my pockets.

No, I do not trust them.

 

Maybe the key to understanding this is to study enough so that you understand the science (both facts and methods) and then look at the work again.

There are a lot of things going on in studies of global warming, but a good place to start is to understand what the greenhouse effect is and the physical basis of how it works. There are various levels at which to understand this topic. You can start with a very descriptive and qualitative version of the greenhouse effect for a very simple system, and that will take you to a certain level of understanding, a useful though very limited level of understanding.

Another level is to learn some basic spectroscopy and understand how this relates to the greenhouse effect. Again, there are a number of levels of understanding of spectroscopy, starting at a very qualitative non-mathematical level, and then working your way up through quantum theory, group theory, selection rules, and so forth, and ultimately going to the level of quantum electrodynamics. You don't have to go to the highest level (e.g. quantum electrodynamics) to have a deep understanding of the spectroscopic aspects of the greenhouse effect.

Then you can learn heat and mass transport. This overlaps partly with spectroscopy. For example there is radiative energy transfer, including a concept of radiation diffusion, or radiative trapping that figures into the physics and chemistry of the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Then, continuing with the theme of heat and mass transport, you can learn about conductive and and convective heat transfer.

Most of the above is going to require you to learn calculus and differential equations to have a good understanding of the physics.

Once you have come to a basic understanding of some of the physics of a simplified version of the greenhouse effect, which will take a lot of work, then you can start to tackle the harder stuff, which means you start getting into the chemistry of it all, including the coupling between chemical and physical process. To do this right you will need to learn something about kinetic rate theory of gas phase processes, and if you want to do this right you will need to learn something about solving a set of coupled differential equations so you can understand how to do some of the modeling calculations, and that gets us into numerical methods, a general topic in applied math. Actually, numerical methods permeate the whole field of global warming. I just use the integration of coupled rate equations as an example. The topic of numerical analysis then gets us into the topic of computer science and computation.

But wait, there's more, because the earth is not a homogeneous system. You've got atmosphere (which is quite complicated in its own right), and you have ocean, and you have land, and you have physical and chemical interactions between these systems.

Then there's biology...

The point is, it is all very complicated, and no one knows it all, and much that no one knows. I believe you agree with this, but you are putting an undue emphasis on what is not known in general, and what you yourself do not know in particular.

However, there are a lot of people that have studied various aspects of this problem at a fairly deep level, and, contrary to your impression, there is actually quite a bit that is known among those people. Based on what is known, those who study this field are reasonably sure that they understand much of the broad outlines of the problem and some of the specifics to a pretty significant degree. Just because you don't understand much of it is no indication at all that nobody understand much of it.

I am not sure if your general stance is that you do not believe in the scientific consensus opinion on global warming, or if you simply believe that we don't know enough of the science to have a good handle on whether global warming is happening, but you need to know that if you are a "non-believer" you are taking the less-probable side of the argument. As a society we are making a bet on global warming, whether overtly or unwittingly. My view is that it is better to bet on the side with higher probability than to take the lower probability bet. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there, most of whom are woefully and willfully ignorant of science, who think it is smart to take the low-probability bet.

I myself am not a global warming scientist and do not understand it in all aspects. However, I have a better understanding of many aspects of the problem than most folks. For example, I do know something about spectroscopy, and I have done some work on solving coupled differential equations in gas phase chemical kinetics, though not applied to the problem of global warming. Being at least partly informed of the basic science, and also being well-versed in the general practice of science, I think my opinion is probably better informed on this topic than most, and is therefore of higher value than the opinion of the ignorant.

This does not mean that the ignorant are not entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if an opinion is based of gross ignorance it can carry little weight.

 

Yes, they were the scientists of the time, and the teachers, and the politicians and the people that believed that the established authorities must always know better.

 

Actually, a prediction of global cooling was a minority view among scientists, even back then.

 

I think you do make assumptions about me that are inaccurate.

I have done this; I have had 3 years of advanced collage level physics, I have done thermal analysis of complex systems of heat transfer through various mediums including gas and vacuum. I do understand the topic more than most.

I have operated gas choreographs and have studies spectroscopy and the transfer of energy (such as heat and sun light of various frequencies) though various mediums including air, seawater, glass and polycarbonate. I have also studies optics and light refraction and have designed lenses to get a particular effect. I have designed filters to selectivity allow narrow frequencies of light to alter the total energy and spectrum of visible light that was allowed through the filter. I have studies and own a number of books on both quantum mechanics, quantum theory and super string theory, they were all interesting reads and I found easy to understand and follow.

I have four years of advance thermodynamics, entropy and heat transfer studies including experiments where these properties were measured and calculated. I have ran experiments to measure and monitor both heat energy transport and mass transport of complex thermal systems in various applications. I have also designed high energy engines that depended on maintaining proper heat, energy and mass transfer. I have designed heat exchangers and cooling systems to maintain proper operation of high engergy density thermal engines. This required accurately determine thermall transfer properties at the interface between super heated gases, metal alloys and liquid coolent, and than back to a gas.

I am intimately familiar with the conductive, convective and radiant heat transfer properties of all most all known elements and most alloys and compounds. I could not have designed effective and reliable high density heat engines if I did not. This is routine work for me.

I have 4 years worth of advance calculus and differential equations eduction, and I use it in my daily work.

I have much more than a basic understanding of basic physics, and I have several years of collage level chemistry. I have also extensively studied combustion chemistry and oxidation, both of which require intimate understand of the properties of the atmosphere, as well as its thermal properties and heat transfer mechanism, and the liquid/gas/solid phase and specific heats of formation, sublimation and vaporization. I have done extensive studies and experiments, and actual paid work, in psychrometry and other moisture/gas effects and mass energy exchange and transfer rates.

Yes, I understand and have read extensively on these topics. I had to learn about the lower and upper atmosphere and it properties to do my work at the first job out of collage many years ago.

All that I wrote above is absolutely true. I understand these processes much more than most. NOWHERE did I ever say I do not understand these processes. what I wrote is that I have read many many studies on the atmosphere and climate as published in many scientific journals, I read and understand them perfectly well. I find the reading interesting and enjoyable. What I wrote is that my examination of the data and their results would not necessarily lead me to thing that the human contribution will make any significant difference. IOW, my own conclusions are different that those that are seeking more government funding.

I am telling you I DO UNDERSTAND it, to a level you could not possibly know. So, you think because I do not agree with those that want more of my money that I am just some ignorant fool? You are very wrong.

If I saw reason to be alarm, than I would want them to be funded to the fullest, and as quickly as possible. but by their behaivor it appears they are not even alarmed, becasue they have spend billions on their studies, but almost NOTHING to do anything about it. for example, they could be spending money on protecting low lying ocean front cities to accommodate sea level rise. But they just want money for more research, and to tax fuel and carbon production, for what? More studies of course.

You are a fool if you think there is anything in any of those scientific reports that I do not understand. My "stance" as you put it is from an educated stand point, not out of ignorance. Those studies read to me like marketing boiler plate there to convince the reader that their work is really important and worthy of further funding. when you do a lot of technical writing, including scientific reports like I do, you can pick out BS like a red flag. The research and data often appear good, it is the sophistry that goes along with it to convince the uneducated that they are worthy of getting more money. Right now, you will get ZERO funding if you have published papers that do not toe the academic and political party line. that is also a fact.

So, are you saying you have ignorant opinions since you are not a global warming scientist? Do not dare imply that I am ignorance of physics and science, you are a fool if you think that is true.

I am trying to express an educated alternate opinion and you and other "true believers" call me names and attempt to insult me with such childish nonsense as you wrote above. You make the arrogant assumption that because I do not hold the same opinion as you I must just be some kind of simpleton influenced by rednecks and tea party politics? I likely have more experience and education than you. But that is irrelevant. My educated and professional opinion is there is no hard evidence to demonstrate that human activity has made any significant difference is the normal LONG TERM temperature cycles of our planet. I have challenged you to shoe me the data, I have read everything and every link posted here and elsewhere about long term climate science, yet you choose to resort to insults rather than informed decisions.

 

In a previous post you said "I did not ask you for conclusions, only data, I want data," implying that you didn't even know where to find the raw data, much less actually studied it. And when I posted a Wikipedia chart showing estimated Earth temperatures over the past 500 millions years you expressed surprised that such a chart exists.

Then you posted an apparently truncated Harris-Mann graph which you claimed shows that we are headed for a cooling trend, whereas the full graph, as well as their write-up, projects a cooling trend only through 2019, and then nasty hot temperatures by 2038.

All these statements of yours suggest that, in spite of your assurance that you have a scientific background, you have not actually looked at the data. And as Alan clearly pointed out, no one person has enough brains or time to do all the research themselves. Climate Change research is, necessarily, a collaborative effort. You don't offer any valid specifics of why all these thousands of scientists are wrong. You just make the blanket statement that they are. You're not very persuasive...

 

RAW STORY | Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study