APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Is warming because (1)  CO2 in the atmosphere  slows down the radiation of IR energy to space  (2) the amount of CO2 is increasing  and (3) the irradiance of the Sun is not decreasing (at least not over the last 100 years),  so there will be some increase in average surface temperature.  The Lukewarmists estimate about 0.8 deg C  per century.  The Alarmists have  predicted increasing of the order of 10 deg  C in the next 100 years because some kind of "tipping point",  a critical point of no return will be reached and soon(!).  I think the alarmists are wrong and the Lukewarmists have some evidence to back their estimate up.  I reject the "tipping point"  hypothesis because the Earth has been much warmer than it is now in the past and CO2 levels have been higher than 6000 ppm in the past  and  yet  life on earth flourished,  despite  5 major kill-offs (extinctions) in the past.  

I don't know what irks you, Ellen.  The Lukewarms have a reasonable position given what evidence we have.  They are not guaranteed to be right.  Nobody is so guaranteed.  As a non-equilbrium thermodynamic system the Earth's heat radiation and heat movement  mechanism is complicated beyond any current computer technology and we don't have all the math necessary to solve the Navier Stokes equation at all scales of resolution.   

Since we cannot experimentally control our climate nor simulate it comprehensively,  we make models  which happen to be incomplete  and such that no one model  integrates all of the possible factors of climate including natural drivers.  We have no good model (yet) for cloud formation.  We have no good model (yet) for the effect of dusts and aeorisols.  We have no get model (yet) for the Sun's magnetic repulsion of charged cosmic ray particles from outside the solar system. And most important off all,  we have very incomplete  grasp of the  feedbacks,  both positive and negative.  The claims the Alarmists make for their two dozen (or so) models  are not supported by hard  empirical fact.   I am inclined to listen to the Lukewarmists  because they have some evidence for what they say  and they do not make  hyper claims on steroids  for their models.

So what ails ye, Ellen?  Do you think the earth is not currently warming up? It is.  The Little Ice Age Ended.  Cold Spells end because things get warmer.

 

It's apparently not been warming up for the last 19-20 years.

The sun's lost its sunspots indicating a switch over to cooling. Could be 50 years of it.

CO2 may do what you say but you've no data to show the overall effect as a percentage of warming or compared to the effect of water vapor or other trace gases.

Public policy is supposed to be based on models, incomplete and deficient ones at that?

Lukewarmism sounds like tail between the legs appeasement of the Climate Changers (AGWs). Not by you, however. You simply seem oblivious to bad people who aren't literally coming at you with knives, guns and bombs.

--Brant

 

[BaalChatzaf]

12 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's apparently not been warming up for the last 19-20 years.

The sun's lost its sunspots indicating a switch over to cooling. Could be 50 years of it.

CO2 may do what you say but you've no data to show the overall effect as a percentage of warming or compared to the effect of water vapor or other trace gases.

Public policy is supposed to be based on models, incomplete and deficient ones at that?

Lukewarmism sounds like tail between the legs appeasement of the Climate Changers (AGWs). Not by you, however. You simply seem oblivious to bad people who aren't literally coming at you with knives, guns and bombs.

--Brant

 

The irradiance of the Sun is currently under very careful observation (real observation done with expensive hi tech instruments).  Even if the irradiance of the Sun dips as little as one percent,  this can have non-linear consequences (our climate system is chaotic dynamic).  This will require some very careful study and some  real physics (as opposed to models).  The matter is being studied.

Lukewarmism is the recognition of our mathematical and computational limits  and our recognition that the earth's climate system is at its base chaotic and its inherent complication far exceeds what is going on in particle physics.  Lukewarmism is a realistic appraisal of our limitations.  

We are still at a pre-Newtonian stage in understanding climate and weather.  For flow related behavior we have the right equations (Navier Stokes)  but the equations still currently have no uniform approximation that will yield  correct and stable solutions at all degrees of resolution.  

Recognizing limits is no appeasement.  It is simply being sensible.  If one knows one's limits then one can concentrate effectively on overcoming them.

Your evaluation of the lukewarmist position indicates (to me any way) that you are an ignoramus in matters of science. 

[Peter]

Robert Tracinski quoted: Jack Wakeland agrees, citing Henrik Svensmark's The Chilling Stars, which provides the theory for the relationship between sunspot activity and global temperatures. Jack is too busy designing all of the nuclear power plants we're going to need soon because we can't build any more coal-fire plants, so in lieu of an actual review of the book, I'll post the comments Jack sent to me:

"This book outlines a powerful theory of cloud formation. Dr. Svensmark's discovery is that cosmic rays, within a specific energy band, generate the vast numbers of micro droplets of electrically-charged H2SO3 and H2SO4 in the lower atmosphere that cause sun-reflecting clouds to form. He has observed dramatic increases in charged micro-droplets of acid in the laboratory and he has seen it in data reported in airborne H2SO3, H2SO4 micro droplet surveys over the ocean. Experiments are scheduled for the CERN particle accelerator to further examine the precise mechanics of the collisions of cosmic rays with atmospheric molecules by which charged mirco-droplets are formed.

"For decades meteorologists have been chasing after the source of these micro droplets and planetary chemists have been chasing the SO3 emissions over the oceans that provide the material for most of these droplets (because most of the earth's surface is covered by oceans). They've been interested because these electrically charged micro droplets of H2SO3 and H2SO4—many of which are only dozens or hundreds of molecules in size—are the nucleation sites for atmospheric water droplets that make up clouds.

"Henrik Svensmark discovered that cosmic rays create these charged micro droplets, that differences in the annual flux of cosmic rays within the frequency range that generates lower atmospheric clouds correlate directly with changes in the global atmosphere and ocean temperatures; that major astronomical collisions that have occurred two or three times over the past billion years (and produce vast fluxes of cosmic rays) can be correlated to paleontological evidence of major shocks to the earth's climate; that decadal sun spot cycles (which alters the fraction of the cosmic rays within the right energy band that get deflected away from the solar system) correlate to decadal warming and cooling of the earth's atmosphere; that early Renaissance observations of sunspots are correlated with centuries-long warming and cooling cycles (the end of the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age); and that changes in isotopic concentrations of atmospheric gases trapped in polar ice which are correlated to cosmic ray flux can be correlated to millennial changes in the earth's atmospheric temperature.

"His cosmic-ray-cloud-formation theory explains atmospheric temperature changes on every time scale against which it has been tested: on the annual timescale, on the decadal timescale, on the tricentennial timescale, on the millennial timescale, and on the time scale of paleontological epochs (hundreds of millions of years).

"Henrik Svensmark has discovered the primary thermostat of the earth.

"Henrik Svensmark's theory even explains the 'Antarctic anomaly'—ice cores around the world show that, for over 30,000 years, when arctic ice and glaciers across the northern and southern hemisphere recede, Antarctic ice accumulates, and vice versa.

"Are there other, secondary thermostats? Surely there are. (e.g., astronomical changes in our sun's output as it ages, the precession of the earth's spin and irregularities in its orbit, and of course atmospheric chemistry, the greenhouse effect of water, methane, and CO2). But none is correlated to global climatic temperature change with one tenth of the strength or one tenth of the reliability, across all time scales, of Dr. Svensmark's cosmic-ray-cloud-formation discovery.

"But the science on the issue of CO2's role in changing the climate is even more clear cut. Not only is there no scientific evidence of any kind that the earth's climate is getting hotter and being driven out of control by rising CO2 concentration, there is newly discovered scientific evidence that proves that the earth's temperature is being driven by cosmic rays, and there is newly discovered scientific evidence that the climate is well under control. There is newly discovered evidence that proves that substantial reductions in solar activity over the past ten years have cooled the earth 0.3C.

"We not only know that CO2 is innocent, we know—with the certainty of Perry Mason winning a confession on the witness stand—which party 'did it.'

"It is a very peculiar, even tragic, situation that Dr. Svensmark made his momentous discoveries about what is the primary driver of the earth's climate—he made the discoveries in approximately 2002–2006—at the exact moment when it has become almost impossible to rationally discuss the earth's climate. He made his discoveries at the moment when the entire Western World is on the brink of committing industrial suicide over the supposed horrors of too much CO2."

[Peter]

Ellen wrote: It's impossible to be sure because of the unreliability of surface measuring devices, compounded by monkeying with data and deleting of raw data. end quote

And there could be a problem with eye witness testimony too. Around here you hear about the blizzard of ’79 or the storm of ’62 which created the Ocean City, Maryland inlet but testimony about how hot or cold it was are influenced by the form of heating or air conditioning people had.

I remember as a kid being unable to sleep in the heat, and literally climbing into an open window when a thunderstorm passed to feel the cool breeze. I might think, that was the warmest summer ever, but if we had had air conditioning I might not have even noticed the heat.

Thermometers vary. I know someone who has a large circular thermometer hanging from a shade tree and it never matches mine, or the TV or radio weather reports readings “at the airport.”

I know there are various controversial though scientific methods to *read* the ice in Greenland, or examine tree’s growth rings, or how high up the mountains in Italy they grew grapes that year. So, as long as historical records and thermometer readings coincide we can use it as evidence of climatic action. Too bad they didn’t have thermometers going back to Roman or Greek times.

Ba’al wrote: Do you think the earth is not currently warming up? It is. The Little Ice Age Ended. Cold Spells end because things get warmer. end quote

And a big hurrah to that. Warmer means we thrive, as history proves. There are fewer deserts because the ice melts creating a bigger area of surface water, which evaporates and then rains back to earth. The drivers of climate are the sun, and then there may be influence from cosmic rays.  

Peter

[Peter]

As an aside about *evidence*, it was thrilling reading about dinosaur tracks in Scientific American or was it Popular Science? The location was mud flats and the tracks were laid down at the same time and showed a plant eating dinosaur running away and several Velociraptors pursuing it. It indicated pack behavior and hinted at a greater level of intelligence, probably around the intelligence level of mammalian wolves.

Peter         

From Wikipedia: . . . The distinctive claw, on the second digit of dromaeosaurids, has traditionally been depicted as a slashing weapon; its assumed use being to cut and disembowel prey. In the "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen, the Velociraptor lies underneath, with one of its sickle claws apparently embedded in the throat of its prey, while the beak of Protoceratops is clamped down upon the right forelimb of its attacker. This suggests Velociraptor may have used its sickle claw to pierce vital organs of the throat, such as the jugular vein, carotid artery, or trachea (windpipe), rather than slashing the abdomen. The inside edge of the claw was rounded and not unusually sharp, which may have precluded any sort of cutting or slashing action, although only the bony core of the claw is known. The thick abdominal wall of skin and muscle of large prey species would have been difficult to slash without a specialized cutting surface.^[24] The slashing hypothesis was tested during a 2005 BBC documentary, The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs. The producers of the program created an artificial Velociraptor leg with a sickle claw and used a pork belly to simulate the dinosaur's prey. Though the sickle claw did penetrate the abdominal wall, it was unable to tear it open, indicating that the claw was not used to disembowel prey.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

 

Ba’al wrote: Do you think the earth is not currently warming up? It is. The Little Ice Age Ended. Cold Spells end because things get warmer. end quote

And a big hurrah to that. Warmer means we thrive, as history proves. There are fewer deserts because the ice melts creating a bigger area of surface water, which evaporates and then rains back to earth. The drivers of climate are the sun, and then there may be influence from cosmic rays.  

Peter

Warmer times have  been good for civilization (on balance).  Warmer climate (up to a point) means longer growing seasons and more food for people.

In our neck of t he woods, it also means the Canadian Northwest Passage will be open for longer periods.  That is very beneficial for freight shipping. 

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The irradiance of the Sun is currently under very careful observation (real observation done with expensive hi tech instruments).  Even if the irradiance of the Sun dips as little as one percent,  this can have non-linear consequences (our climate system is chaotic dynamic).  This will require some very careful study and some  real physics (as opposed to models).  The matter is being studied.

Lukewarmism is the recognition of our mathematical and computational limits  and our recognition that the earth's climate system is at its base chaotic and its inherent complication far exceeds what is going on in particle physics.  Lukewarmism is a realistic appraisal of our limitations.  

We are still at a pre-Newtonian stage in understanding climate and weather.  For flow related behavior we have the right equations (Navier Stokes)  but the equations still currently have no uniform approximation that will yield  correct and stable solutions at all degrees of resolution.  

Recognizing limits is no appeasement.  It is simply being sensible.  If one knows one's limits then one can concentrate effectively on overcoming them.

Your evaluation of the lukewarmist position indicates (to me any way) that you are an ignoramus in matters of science. 

I'm talking political corruption of science. You are oblivious to it it would seem. I'm an ignoramus in matters of science in the sense most scientists outside their field are ignoramuses although not in scientific basics. You don't get to Wikipedia your way through these discussions on OL. You throw up innumerable data but don't connect the dots beyond or outside your scientific merry-go-round.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I'm talking political corruption of science.

Brant,

That, and world power, is ALL that global warming means right now.

There is no way in hell I will even look at all that data anymore--not when it comes from corrupted sources. God knows I tried and and I know I am not the only one who feels this way.

True respect is earned, not taken by force, intimidation, peer pressure, snark and political pull.

Trying to find decent unbiased data--and genuine concern for humanity--among those folks is like trying to find wedding rings in sewer pipes. You can find a few, but who wants to sort through sewer pipes?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I'm talking political corruption of science. You are oblivious to it it would seem. I'm an ignoramus in matters of science in the sense most scientists outside their field are ignoramuses although not in scientific basics. You don't get to Wikipedia your way through these discussions on OL. You throw up innumerable data but don't connect the dots beyond or outside your scientific merry-go-round.

--Brant

I am aware the scientific activity has been politically interfered with and corrupted.  I was speaking to the genuine science issue in climate. If you want dots connected then you must read technical publications on thermodynamics,  fluid mechanics,  chaotic dynamics and the various studies of earth's climate systems and sub systems.  To do this justice, you must make it your life's work.  I am just  an informed bystander.  The real players publish their findings in scientific journals.  I know enough about the issues to say that the current crop of climate sensitivity models are crude and incomplete.

And I have not put  out a lot of data (i.e. numbers).  I think the questions raised about climate go beyond this number and that number. 

The real question is to what extent does human activity influence climate?   My conclusion based on what I have read and figured out is that human activity does not influence climate nearly as much as the alarmists  claim.  Even so,  it is not prudent to keep on putting CO2 into the atmosphere without some concern over how much this will affect temperature.  Specifically I think it would be a bad idea to increase CO2 concentration from the current 400 ppm to 800 ppm.  That could raise the surface temperature enough to release methane  from the ocean and from the tundra regions of the world.  Methane is more of a potent greenhouse gas mole for mole than is CO2.  Releasing the methane as a kind of positive feed back that increase the inhibition of radiating heat in the infrared range into space.  The practical consequence of this kind of temperature increase might be the melting of land sited glaciers which would raise sea levels.   I don't think all these dire events are going to occur in the short run,  but there is always the long run.

My position on the matter is to transition from  coal burning  to fission generation at a sustainable and reasonable rate.  That means something like a 20-40 year programs to build more nuclear generators  and phase out coal burning.  We can burn natural gas, which produces less CO2 per joule of energy released by combustion.  This would slow down the rate at which we are increasing the CO2 overload in the atmosphere.  Eventually we would have to transition away from burning natural gas.  Once we get away from burning stuff we no longer at CO2 to the atmosphere.  If  further study indicates we should decrease the CO2 overload  we can do this by planting lots and lots of trees.  We might even convince the Boys in Brazil to stop destroying the Amazon Rain Forest.

Another line of development would be to find a catalytic method of breaking down water into H2 and O2  powered by sunlight.  This would be a photosynthesis analog that would produce all the free hydrogen gas we need.  Then would could transition to hydrogen fueled cars and trucks.  This is squeaky clean energy. Burning hydrogen produces water vapor. So we go from water to hydrogen gas (powered by solar converters preferably) to vehicle power (by burning the hydrogen) and getting back the water we started with.   This is a long term approach and there is a lot of work yet to be done.

Another line of development is to come up with economical means of storing very large amounts of energy  (batteries are one way of doing this.  There also other ways of storing energy).  This would overcome the basic problem of solar and wind generation in that they are both intermittent.  With energy storage in hand  solar and wind generation would be star players in the power generation line up. 

There are lots of things we should be doing  to clean up our technology.  I think if we really are serious about it we can achieve a clean power world in 50 years  or so.  Eventually our great grand children will look back at our times and think how silly were were not to have started sooner. 

When I say "we"  I do not mean just the United States, Europe and Canada.  We need to convince the Chinese People and the People of India  that this is the time we should clean up our act.  If we can get the politicians out of the way of the engineers and scientists we could have a cleaner nicer world and we would develop all sorts of derivative technologies in the process of cleaning up that would increase prosperity a great deal.  Look at what development of electronics has done for the world.  It has made us all richer. 

I think the alarmists and the politicians  looking to exploit the concerns over climate are doing us all a disservice.  Even if the alarmists are sincere,  they are misguided.  And the politicians?  Well I really do not know how to keep these creeps out of our way,  but we really should.  If you have any workable ideas about de-politicizing what is really a technical scientific issue,  I am all ears.  Do tell us.  We have simply got to discourage creatures like Al Gore  or educate the public to ignore the Al Gores.  Damned if I know how to do that. 

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

You are merely looking to switch the politicians from the current group to "The rule of the airmen." (The 1930s' movie Things to Come.)

It's true the only power source that can displace coal worldwide is nuclear. A significant exception is the U.S. with its vast reserves of natural gas.

The vast capital expenditures and maintenance required pretty much rule out solar and wind as major power sources unless subsidized. It's coal, nuclear, natural gas and hydro. There is no room to speak of for expanding the last. (Hawaii uses oil.)

Your assumption--one of them--is that it's vital to reduce putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and that beyond that we're likely screwed as if there were no other possible ways except tree planting in the Amazon to lower temperatures should they rise.

Did the methane release you fear happen when the temperatures went up high enough a thousand years ago to grow grapes in England and to colonize Greenland? Why not?

But here is what is happening now: the U.S. is using more natural gas, China is building a lot of nuclear plants, India doesn't care, and energy demands are going up.

Overall there is no stopping the man-made increases of CO2 in the atmosphere in the short and intermediate terms. Your physicalities come with no moral suasion and have no gravitas therefore anyway. There is no way for any technocrat to save the world from AGW. Your "is" has no real "ought."

--Brant

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This whole climate thing is premised on an idea I find silly.

Everyone presumes that the energy companies are fine with destroying the earth with permanent damage for short-term profits.

From what I know, energy companies plan to be in business for a long, long time, not just for another decade or so. So isn't it reasonable to assume that they would be interested in this topic enough to do something about it if real danger were involved?

Or is it more reasonable to assume that major energy corporations are suicidal in nature? 

Really?

(I know Wall Street can be, but that's pure capital wedded to oceans of greed, not actual stuff people sell for money.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This whole climate thing is premised on an idea I find silly.

Everyone presumes that the energy companies are fine with destroying the earth with permanent damage for short-term profits.

From what I know, energy companies plan to be in business for a long, long time, not just for another decade or so. So isn't it reasonable to assume that they would be interested in this topic enough to do something about it if real danger were involved?

Or is it more reasonable to assume that major energy corporations are suicidal in nature? 

Really?

(I know Wall Street can be, but that's pure capital wedded to oceans of greed, not actual stuff people sell for money.)

Michael

The "climate thing" is a question.  Very simply put,  to what extent is human activity altering the climate? To what extent or with what probability is human activity producing effects possibly or probably harmful to human life and health?

The same question was asked about various kinds of air and water pollution.  We got our answers  and in the U.S.  the air and water has been cleaned up considerably.  Back in 1963 on a typical warm afternoon   standing at second avenue I could not see more the one block westward along a wide enough numbered street.  Now standing in the same place I can clearly see the New Jersey Short.   Back in 1963  when I was in Manhattan when I blew my nose I left two circular black rings on my tissue or hanky.  One ring for each nostril.  Now when I blow my nose I done leave any black rings.

This was Manhattan.  It was twice as bad in Pittsburgh.   Now because we have enforced clean are standard  we can see clearly a mile down the road, or even more than a mile.

At one time  all of America was breathing in lead tetra ethyl, a compound that produces over an extended period lead poisoning.  We now have laws which are enforced that prohibit the burning of leaded gasoline.  America was being rendered more witless than usual by the lead residue.  P.S.  the  anti-lead laws were fought against tooth an nail by the companies making petrol fuel for vehicles  using essentially the same arguments that were used against the finds showing tobacco smoke is cancer causing in a large number of case.  But we now have cleaner air because lead compounds  were  taken out of petrol.

Currently in Asia  cities in China (big, big cities) are suffering from self induced air pollution.  A side effect of their coal powered  electrical generating stations. I have seen photos of the people walking around with face masks that filter out some of the particulates.  Eventually the government of China will have to address that problem squarely.  China is now  where the U.S. was back in the 50's and 60's  with regard to dirty air. 

So you see there are some human activities that harm humans  and they must be eliminated  or minimized.

The question remains:  are there sufficiently large temperature modifying effects due to human activities that can cause considerable damage to humans in the medium and long run?   We do NOT yet have definitive answers. 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote, “We do NOT yet have definitive answers.”

 

We have people angry about the heat if they don’t have air conditioning and a few deaths from the heat, many caused by lapses in judgement. There are more deaths due to the cold. Neither heat or cold is shown to be caused by humans except for *the heat island affect* caused by non-reflected, accumulated heat near man made concrete structures and asphalt roads.

 

Possible climatic change is not like a car careening towards you. It is more like a breeze moving the upper branches of a tree. Wonder about it, look for storm clouds, but don’t panic. If you spend time on the moving branches of a tree, it is a waste of time.

Peter    

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote, “We do NOT yet have definitive answers.”

 

We have people angry about the heat if they don’t have air conditioning and a few deaths from the heat, many caused by lapses in judgement. There are more deaths due to the cold. Neither heat or cold is shown to be caused by humans except for *the heat island affect* caused by non-reflected, accumulated heat near man made concrete structures and asphalt roads.

 

Possible climatic change is not like a car careening towards you. It is more like a breeze moving the upper branches of a tree. Wonder about it, look for storm clouds, but don’t panic. If you spend time on the moving branches of a tree, it is a waste of time.

Peter    

You are quite correct about the cold.  More people die from lack of heat than from overheating. 

Also the polar regions are heated by air convection from the tropics and by the the oceanic  thermohaline conveyors (for example, The Gulf Stream).  This does cause  glaciers to retreat some.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

We do NOT yet have definitive answers.

But we DO have definitive power grabs with definitive gobs of money based on claiming they have definitive answers.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But we DO have definitive power grabs with definitive gobs of money based on claiming they have definitive answers.

Michael

That we do....

Science and technology perverted  by government slime and their  organizational  lackeys. 

 

[Peter]

Moralist wrote . . . oops it was Ba’al but he sounds so much like Greg: Science and technology perverted by government slime and their organizational  lackeys. end quote

No joke. I have a personal question to ask. In twenty years what will the sea level rise be on the mid Atlantic coast?

Peter 

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, Peter said:

Moralist wrote . . . oops it was Ba’al but he sounds so much like Greg: Science and technology perverted by government slime and their organizational  lackeys. end quote

No joke. I have a personal question to ask. In twenty years what will the sea level rise be on the mid Atlantic coast?

Peter 

The better question to ask is what the coastal ocean level  gauges will indicate.  Most of the lukewarmist  guess an average coastal sea level increase of six to eight inches  by the end of the century mostly due to melting glaciers and some water expansion due to a small temperature increase. A body of water will expand a bit when it is heated.   Al Gore, the Inventor of the Internet says the oceans will rise 20 feet in the next hundred years because all of the ice in the Iceland Glacier will melt.   This is non-sense. 

There really is no such thing as sea level (overall) because of  large gyres (vortices)  produced by ocean currents,  wind and the Coriolis force.  Look at water going down a drain.  As it circles around  the height of the water at the edges of the vortex is greater than in the middle.  The oceans are NOT like a body of water at rest in a vessel.   In such a case,  assuming a level flat bottom one can definitely say the the depth is.   

The ocean bottoms are not flat at all.  There are mountains, valleys, rifts and canyons underneath  the seas that make their  land surface counterparts look small.

Also as glaciers melt the weight they exert on the land they are sitting upon is lessened and the land  "springs up"  a bit then the weight is relieved.  So  land rising makes the coast sea levels  decrease a  bit. 

[Ellen Stuttle]

On April 30, 2017 at 10:19 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Is warming because (1)  CO2 in the atmosphere  slows down the radiation of IR energy to space  (2) the amount of CO2 is increasing  and (3) the irradiance of the Sun is not decreasing (at least not over the last 100 years),  so there will be some increase in average surface temperature.  The Lukewarmists estimate about 0.8 deg C  per century.  The Alarmists have  predicted increasing of the order of 10 deg  C in the next 100 years because some kind of "tipping point",  a critical point of no return will be reached and soon(!).  I think the alarmists are wrong and the Lukewarmists have some evidence to back their estimate up.  I reject the "tipping point"  hypothesis because the Earth has been much warmer than it is now in the past and CO2 levels have been higher than 6000 ppm in the past  and  yet  life on earth flourished,  despite  5 major kill-offs (extinctions) in the past.  

I don't know what irks you, Ellen.  The Lukewarms have a reasonable position given what evidence we have.  They are not guaranteed to be right.  Nobody is so guaranteed.  As a non-equilbrium thermodynamic system the Earth's heat radiation and heat movement  mechanism is complicated beyond any current computer technology and we don't have all the math necessary to solve the Navier Stokes equation at all scales of resolution.   

Since we cannot experimentally control our climate nor simulate it comprehensively,  we make models  which happen to be incomplete  and such that no one model  integrates all of the possible factors of climate including natural drivers.  We have no good model (yet) for cloud formation.  We have no good model (yet) for the effect of dusts and aeorisols.  We have no get model (yet) for the Sun's magnetic repulsion of charged cosmic ray particles from outside the solar system. And most important off all,  we have very incomplete  grasp of the  feedbacks,  both positive and negative.  The claims the Alarmists make for their two dozen (or so) models  are not supported by hard  empirical fact.   I am inclined to listen to the Lukewarmists  because they have some evidence for what they say  and they do not make  hyper claims on steroids  for their models.

So what ails ye, Ellen?  Do you think the earth is not currently warming up? It is.  The Little Ice Age Ended.  Cold Spells end because things get warmer.

 

Well, here are three things which irk me:

(1) Your saying that "we need" better models and that you think "it is worth the cost" of getting them while never saying just what sort of cost you're proposing, how you expect the money to be provided and by whom, and how you're expecting quality control to be achieved.

(2) Your apparent inability to understand verb tenses and your outright asserting that the earth IS warming now.  That the earth warmed does not say that it is warming.  I don't know if the earth is warming now.  Maybe, maybe not.  I think that there isn't evidence of warming during what's called "the hiatus," and that there are too many unreliabilities to be sure that the supposed warming preceding "the hiatus" was really happening.

(3) Your general habit of not answering questions but instead giving lectures which don't actually address what you were asked.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

45 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

(3) Your general habit of not answering questions but instead giving lectures which don't actually address what you were asked.

Ellen

Repeat the question....

If you asked do I think the earth is warming,  my answer is yes.  A little bit.  

Technically we are still in an ice age (permanent ice at both poles).   Are we in a cold snap like the Little Ice Age.  At present, no.  

Our climate is variable, as it has been for over 4 billion years.  The natural variations in temperature, rain fail, cloud formation, etc  make it difficult to say that AGW has permanently altered the climate.  

The CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing and CO2 does inhibit the radiation of certain IR frequencies into space.  That is a basic fact about CO2.  And a good fact at that.  if CO2 did not do that  we would be freezing to death right now. 

I don't remember who said this:   Some wit  said: Global Warming is just another word for nicer weather. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The cartoonists are finally on it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

On 5/1/2017 at 11:09 PM, Peter said:

Moralist wrote . . . oops it was Ba’al but he sounds so much like Greg: Science and technology perverted by government slime and their organizational  lackeys. end quote

No joke. I have a personal question to ask. In twenty years what will the sea level rise be on the mid Atlantic coast?

Peter 

Possibly two inches...

Nothing like the 20 feet promised to use by Al Gore, the Inventor of the Internet.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 4/8/2014 at 0:54 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

My husband had a very hard time coming to terms with the fact that physicists, too, can act this way.

Ellen

Physicists  are all too human.   Along with the bribe comes the trappings of authority and admiration.  That is every hard to resist.

[BaalChatzaf]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The cartoonists are finally on it.

Michael

Judith Curry beat them all to the punch.  She got out of academia  to preserve both her sanity and integrity. 

Judith Curry is an award winning physicist specializing in weather systems and non-equilbrium thermodynamics.  She earned tenure at the University of Georgia (or is it Georgia State?).  As soon as she started expressing doubt about the quality of climate models  she was smeared,  tarred, demonized and accused of dishonesty for selling out to the Corporations...   You know the drill.  Burn the witch!  Mark the adultress  with an "A"!  etc. etc. 

[Brant Gaede]

On 5/12/2017 at 9:27 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Possibly two inches...

Nothing like the 20 feet promised to use by Al Gore, the Inventor of the Internet.

Possibly two inches [down]...

--Brant