Climate Change- does its cause matter

[Lord of Planar]

Read the article again, this time without confirmation bias. That is NOT the correct conclusion to derive from it.

What if the article isn't correct? How about we start with a paper they use. Look at its title.

Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems​

Look at some of what your link says:

Averaged over the full depth of the ocean, the 1993–2021 heat-gain rates are approximately 0.64 to 0.80 Watts per square meter.​

The only thing that can heat the ocean at this rate is the sun. Neither CO2 or conductance with the atmosphere can come anywhere close to this rate of ocean warming.

Heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional surface warming in the future.​

Aren't you and others continually saying my claim of several decades for the ocean to equalize, is wrong? Seems to me this supports my claim.

The math on their graph doesn't add up. The 28 years to get another 20x10^22 joules would take a net average forcing of 6.3 W/m^2. Don't believe me? Check my math.

This article has too many flaws in it. Very amateurish as if it was written by a pundit, and not a scientist.

I like to see who writes these things.

Muck Rack has Rebecca Lindsey listed as a journalist, with a current job at NOAA as Senior Science Writer and Editor. They have a list of 132 articles for her. No schooling listed.

Muck Rack | For journalists and public relations

Find Rebecca Lindsey of NOAA Climate.gov's articles, email address, contact information, Twitter and more

muckrack.com

LuAnn Dahlman is listed on Linkedin as a science writer and with NOAA since 2008. BS Geology 1983 ASU.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/luanndahlman

 

[Nickyjo]

If the world isnt doomed, then why should anyone care?

But if humans arent the cause then how can we mitigate it?

The problem is education is slanted towards willful propaganda.

Like I said, if the world isnt doomed, then why even bother? We as a species have adjusted throughout history and people are living longer than ever.

And we are adjusting to the current challenge as we did to others. One of the reasons we live longer is that that we have accepted recommendations or warnings of scientists about tobacco and smog.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Read the article again, this time without confirmation bias. That is NOT the correct conclusion to derive from it.

I suggest you do that yourself. Practice what you preach. I do understand the flaws if it. You simply gobble up the agenda.

 

[watsup]

I suggest you do that yourself. Practice what you preach. I do understand the flaws if it. You simply gobble up the agenda.

Standard Lord denier talking point. *YAWN*

 

[Lord of Planar]

Standard Lord denier talking point. *YAWN*

I would hate myself if I were like you. Just slamming people just because it pleases you. I have always believe people who act like you do, have so little self esteem they have to put others down, to feel elevated.

Does that fit you?

 

[watsup]

I would hate myself if I were like you. Just slamming people just because it pleases you. I have always believe people who act like you do, have so little self esteem they have to put others down, to feel elevated.

Does that fit you?

More psychological projection.

 

[Lord of Planar]

More psychological projection.

You are the one putting people down for no reason.

 

[watsup]

You are the one putting people down for no reason.

See post #106. You have not the slightest iota of self-awareness.

 

[watsup]

Averaged over the full depth of the ocean, the 1993–2021 heat-gain rates are approximately 0.64 to 0.80 Watts per square meter.

Again, it would help if you actually read the article without bias confirmation fogging your eyes. Here is a sentence that you conveniently overlooked:

“Less than a watt per square meter might seem like a small change, but multiplied by the surface area of the ocean (more than 360 million square kilometers), that translates into an enormous global energy imbalance.

The only thing that can heat the ocean at this rate is the sun. Neither CO2 or conductance with the atmosphere can come anywhere close to this rate of ocean warming.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just more dilettantism?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Again, it would help if you actually read the article without bias confirmation fogging your eyes. Here is a sentence that you conveniently overlooked:

“Less than a watt per square meter might seem like a small change, but multiplied by the surface area of the ocean (more than 360 million square kilometers), that translates into an enormous global energy imbalance.

I said the math doesn't add up. Why are you helping me argue my point?

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just more dilettantism?

It's called mathematics. Try it some time. What I did was simple algebra with the data they supplied, and their numbers don't add up.

Do the math. Prove me wrong.

 

[watsup]

I said the math doesn't add up. Why are you helping me argue my point?

Actually, the article says that it does based on the huge mass of the ocean. That’s what the sentence says.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, the article says that it does based on the huge mass of the ocean. That’s what the sentence says.

LOL...

That is denying the math.

Denier of science, and now you deny math?

Hey. Why not. Fits you perfectly.

Their numbers do not work. Their numbers in one place or another are simply a lie, or miscalculation.

 

[PoS]

One of the reasons we live longer is that that we have accepted recommendations or warnings of scientists about tobacco and smog.

Which has nothing to do with climate change.

Science is not "willful propaganda". You are the one that is being misled. Why bother making a better world?

LOL better world is bullshit:

 

[Nickyjo]

Which has nothing to do with climate change.


LOL better world is bullshit:

Is your debate strategy to miss the point, or did it sail over your head? Hints: yes the wind might not blow some days, the sun might not shine. But fossil fuels have their negatives, as did pre-smog check vehicles, tobacco, coal dust, acid rain, fluorocarbons, and vaccines. Science offers recipes to eliminate or lessen problems. As mistakes happen or new information arrives, we adjust or abandon the solutions. But opponents of progress condemn efforts that don’t produce perfection. Yes, no doubt some people have been harmed by seat belts, but on balance we are better off buckling up.

 

[watsup]

Agreed. The sun does that. They have warmed more since we have cleared the skies, and it takes a long timer anyway with changes due to the mass they have.

As for ocean warming, does human-produced CO2 figure in the effect at all?

 

[eman623]

Record heatwaves sweep the world from US to Japan via Europe

Record heat is forecast around the world from the United States, where tens of millions are battling dangerously high temperatures, to Europe and Japan, in the latest example of the threat from global warming. Italy faces weekend predictions of historic highs with the health ministry issuing a...

news.yahoo.com

Whether climate change is manmade or not, it's becoming obvious that we need to try and mitigate its impact on our environment in any way we can.

Phase 1 - Admit there's a problem
Phase 2 -
Phase 3 - Profit!

 

[grip]

Phase 1 - Admit there's a problem
Phase 2 -
Phase 3 - Profit!

Govt's and corporations rarely do anything for the direct benefit of humanity. They're motivated by profits and self-interests.

 

[longview]

Govt's and corporations rarely do anything for the direct benefit of humanity. They're motivated by profits and self-interests.

Which is exactly why the refineries will start making carbon neutral fuels when the price of oil gets too high.
It will be more profitable for them to do so.
The fuel will be carbon neutral not because it may help climate change, but because the atmosphere
is a good source for the nearly 4 lbs of carbon needed for each gallon of fuel.
It will not hurt that it will be good publicity, but profits come first.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Well the poor in the democratic countries can go ahead and vote for the greenest parties out there to try and fix this. Yet they don't seem to. E.g. in US, a lot of poor vote for the least environmentally friendly party, the GOP.

That's because of their level of education. The GOP strives to keep it's voters uneducated.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As for ocean warming, does human-produced CO2 figure in the effect at all?

Very little. There is so much water vapor (100%) immediately above the water that the CO2 spectra is blocked from doing any significant warming. Since the spectra from CO2 is fully absorbed in the first few microns of water depth, and its warming would contribute to evaporation more than any retained temperature increase.

The sun heats the oceans. It penetrates deep millionth water and warms at a linear rate since there is no black-body effect from solar warming past the surface.

 

[watsup]

Very little. There is so much water vapor (100%) immediately above the water that the CO2 spectra is blocked from doing any significant warming. Since the spectra from CO2 is fully absorbed in the first few microns of water depth, and its warming would contribute to evaporation more than any retained temperature increase.

The sun heats the oceans. It penetrates deep millionth water and warms at a linear rate since there is no black-body effect from solar warming past the surface.

Do you have a cite for this?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you have a cite for this?

Learn some science. There are references to how all that works. I don't know of any studies that point out how little water actually heats up from CO2 spectra, and don't have time to teach you several semesters of physics. I have shown before where the spectra from CO2 is absorbed in just the first few microns of water depth, and that's without a blanket of H2O vapor over it. Much of the absorption depth is being evaporated at the same time. Very little heat from CO2 spectra is retained in the liquid water, and helps the evaporation process instead.

 

[watsup]

Learn some science. There are references to how all that works. I don't know of any studies that point out how little water actually heats up from CO2 spectra, and don't have time to teach you several semesters of physics. I have shown before where the spectra from CO2 is absorbed in just the first few microns of water depth, and that's without a blanket of H2O vapor over it. Much of the absorption depth is being evaporated at the same time. Very little heat from CO2 spectra is retained in the liquid water, and helps the evaporation process instead.

Just as I thought. No cites. This is why you have so little credibility here. It is quite obvious that the CO2 build-up in the atmosphere has a much greater effect on ocean warmth than you claim. I could cite studies and articles, but what good would it do. You need to do your own research in that regard sometime instead of just spouting off.

 

[Cassandra]

There is no debate that oceans are warming and becoming more acidic.

"Take the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica: It’s about the size of Florida, with a protruding ice shelf that impedes the glacier’s flow into the ocean. Although the ice shelf’s overall melt is slower than originally predicted, warm water is now eating away at it from below, causing deep cracks. At a certain point, that melt may progress enough to become self-sustaining, which would guarantee the glacier’s eventual collapse. How that plays out will help determine how much sea levels will rise—and thus the future of millions of people."

The fate of the Thwaites Glacier could be independent of other tipping points, such as those affecting mountain-glacier loss in South America, or the West African monsoon. But some tipping points will interact, worsening one another’s effects. When melt from Greenland’s glaciers enters the ocean, for example, it alters an important system of currents called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. The AMOC is like a conveyor belt, drawing warm water from the tropics north. The water’s salinity increases as it evaporates, which, among other factors, makes it sink and return south along the ocean floor. As more glacial fresh water enters the system, that conveyor belt will weaken. Right now it’s the feeblest it’s been in more than 1,000 years." -Atlantic (Lois Parshley)

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just as I thought. No cites. This is why you have so little credibility here. It is quite obvious that the CO2 build-up in the atmosphere has a much greater effect on ocean warmth than you claim. I could cite studies and articles, but what good would it do. You need to do your own research in that regard sometime instead of just spouting off.

Unlike you, I understand the sciences and don't need someone else to tell me what to believe. What I said is scientific fact regarding what happens. I wouldn't be able to quantify it, but I do know that the interactions are real.