more ice in Antarctica

[rambot]

1. Use a dictionary.
2. I've argued and debated that on the internet since 2004. Google it. (Ask me about how water vapor traps heat, and you'll get the same answer.)

Ditto. Well, I haven't argued or debated it. The science is 100% settled on that topic.

Here's three for you:
1. Venus and Mars have atmosphere's that have almost the exact same percentage of CO2. Why is one so hot and the other so cold?

Wow. Did an adult just ask why Venus is much hotter than Mars?

2. If I dug a 4,000 foot hole, how hot would the air be at the bottom? Why? This hints at the answer to the first question.

Because the centre of the earth is a molten core of magma at thousands of degrees and as you dig closer to it, the ground warms up?

Or is it because the centre of the Earth is closer to the sun than the outside of the Earth; because that's a good hint for the first question.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Or you could hang out on my front porch.

I'll bring the beer.

 

[Direct Driver]

The science is 100% settled on that topic.

OK, I gotta ask. Was that sarcasm?

Wow. Did an adult just ask why Venus is much hotter than Mars?

Yep. Because it's not what people think.

Because the centre of the earth is a molten core of magma at thousands of degrees and as you dig closer to it, the ground warms up?

nope, though that may have "some" impact.

Or is it because the centre of the Earth is closer to the sun than the outside of the Earth; because that's a good hint for the first question.

Actually, that is not a good hint for the first question. Venus is hotter than Mercury, BTW.

 

[ozso]

Have you heard of Boiled Frog Theory? The idea is that you put a frog in a pan of cold water then slowly heat the water. According to the theory, because the heating is gradual the frog, won't notice until it's too late. The theory isn't true (in reality the frog will jump out) but it illustrates a point.

You're looking for an ultimate catastrophic event. That's unlikely to happen. What will happen is a gradual change affecting different parts of the world in different ways. This will be interspersed with extreme events like our bushfires or your extreme snow storms.

Developing countries will be the hardest hit since they lack the infrastructure and resources to cope well. There's a good chance that damage to developing countries will flow on to the developed world through things like refugee movement and the need to supply aid.

Your attitude to this is a mix of denialism combined with a laissez faire fatalism which is fairly common among Christians on CF.

I have no idea what your vote comment is about but it hints at a conspiracy theory.

OB

Let's say I'm now 100% sold on climate change. Scared to death even. What difference is that going to make? I'm already as green as I can be. So what difference is my belief going to make in the course of scientific phenomenon?

 

[Occams Barber]

Have you ever looked at an almanac listing the temperature readings of where you live over the last 100 years? I did once and saw the same cycles of heat spells taking place over the decades. T

You mentioned looking up an 'almanac' to see the temperature changes over time for where I live. We don't have 'almanacs' but this is the official (Met Bureau) graph of temperature change for New South Wales (my state) between 1910 and 2020.

It shows the yearly temperature differences (anomaly) compared to a baseline average of the 30 years from 1961 to 1990. As you can see - temperatures are going up. The results are similar for most parts of the country.

OB

 

[ozso]

You mentioned looking up an 'almanac' to see the temperature changes over time for where I live. We don't have 'almanacs' but this is the official (Met Bureau) graph of temperature change for New South Wales (my state) between 1910 and 2020.

It shows the yearly temperature differences (anomaly) compared to a baseline average of the 30 years from 1961 to 1990. As you can see - temperatures are going up. The results are similar for most parts of the country.

View attachment 295083
OB

I was talking about just regular temperature numbers. Like the high today in Sydney is 23°C.

 

[Occams Barber]

Let's say I'm 100% sold on climate change. Now what difference is that going to make? I'm already as green as I can be.

Let's face it - you're not sold. Scientific evidence carries no weight with you because it doesn't coincide with your belief system and I'm not necessarily talking about religious belief, although it may be a factor.

You don't need to be 100% sold - reasoned scepticism is fine - but head-in-the-sand, knee jerk disbelief in the face of established scientific fact does you no favours.


What can you do? Educating yourself on the topic would help. That way you can also dispel the myths and misunderstandings when you come across them. You could support your government if and when it moves to mitigate Climate Change. Nobody expects you to be a Climate Change Warrior. Being an informed observer is enough.

OB

 

[Direct Driver]

Here is why so many people think they have a solid understanding of AGW or climate change thanks to CNN or reading a few articles or seeing a few graphs - but they don't have a clue:

 

[Occams Barber]

I was talking about just regular temperature numbers. Like the high today in Sydney is 23°C.

This is more useful. The red bar indicates that the year is hotter than the 1961 to 1990 average. The blue bars are cooler.

Climate change graphs all tend to use a similar method -i.e. degrees above or below a baseline average.

OB

 

[Direct Driver]

Let's face it - you're not sold. Scientific evidence carries no weight with you because it doesn't coincide with your belief system and I'm not necessarily talking about religious belief, although it may be a factor.

You don't need to be 100% sold - reasoned scepticism is fine - but head-in-the-sand, knee jerk disbelief in the face of established scientific fact does you no favours.


What can you do? Educating yourself on the topic would help. That way you can also dispel the myths and misunderstandings when you come across them. You could support your government if and when it moves to mitigate Climate Change. Nobody expects you to be a Climate Change Warrior. Being an informed observer is enough.

OB

I'm in agreement with that. This is an excellent starting point: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL25om63gd1VoP7m5VLuVcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

As is this: Real Climate Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

The first eye opener for me on this topic was when I started digging into the earth station data and the actual station locations and their local changing environment, coupled with an understanding of the "urban heat island". This was back around 2005.

And once my eyes were opened, I started seeing more clearly, and found myself able to better see where articles - scientific or otherwise - were "scholarly" or just pushing an agenda.

 

[rambot]

OK, I gotta ask. Was that sarcasm?

No. And if you knew the answer, you'd know it is factual.
Remember: I asked HOW, not if.
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education.

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.

This animation is somewhat of a simplification. Molecules are constantly in motion, colliding with other gas molecules and transferring energy from one molecule to another during collisions. In the more-complex, real-world process, a CO2 molecule would most likely bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule, adding speed to that molecule's motion. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of the molecules in the gas, the faster motion of a molecule that eventually results from the IR photon that was absorbed by a CO2 molecule raises the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere.

This hasn't been up for debate for a long while.

Yep. Because it's not what people think.

Oh, rest assured, it is EXACTLY whta people think.
FYI...did you know that Mercury is also hotter than Neptune?

nope, though that may have "some" impact.

Yeah. You're going to have to start "sharing your knowledge" because, based on the curriculum I teach to students which is based on scientific research, what I have said is factual.
I'd appreciate some actual answers from you if you're willing to give them because at this point, I've said the correct answers so I'm curious what you're thinking is.

Actually, that is not a good hint for the first question. Venus is hotter than Mercury, BTW.
View attachment 295084

Yes I know. Because Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere to trap heat.
Do you think it is reasonable to compare the distances between Mercury and Venus and Venus and Mars?

 

[rambot]

I'm in agreement with that. This is an excellent starting point: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL25om63gd1VoP7m5VLuVcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

As is this: Real Climate Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

The first eye opener for me on this topic was when I started digging into the earth station data and the actual station locations and their local changing environment, coupled with an understanding of the "urban heat island". This was back around 2005.

And once my eyes were opened, I started seeing more clearly, and found myself able to better see where articles - scientific or otherwise - were "scholarly" or just pushing an agenda.

And you did this because you have what kind of training and how many hours of experience in (and I use the term as an internet warrior would and NOT a university level researcher) "research"?

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm in agreement with that. This is an excellent starting point: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL25om63gd1VoP7m5VLuVcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

As is this: Real Climate Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

The first eye opener for me on this topic was when I started digging into the earth station data and the actual station locations and their local changing environment, coupled with an understanding of the "urban heat island". This was back around 2005.

And once my eyes were opened, I started seeing more clearly, and found myself able to better see where articles - scientific or otherwise - were "scholarly" or just pushing an agenda.

He who takes his science from YouTube 'experts' is destined for an eternity of ignorance - OB
​

Try reading some real science DD.

OB

 

[ozso]

This is more useful. The red bar indicates that the year is hotter than the 1961 to 1990 average. The blue bars are cooler.

Climate change graphs all tend to use a similar method -i.e. degrees above or below a baseline average.

OB

Yeah but by what margin? 0.10% of a degree?

 

[rambot]

I'm in agreement with that. This is an excellent starting point: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL25om63gd1VoP7m5VLuVcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

As is this: Real Climate Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

The first eye opener for me on this topic was when I started digging into the earth station data and the actual station locations and their local changing environment, coupled with an understanding of the "urban heat island". This was back around 2005.

And once my eyes were opened, I started seeing more clearly, and found myself able to better see where articles - scientific or otherwise - were "scholarly" or just pushing an agenda.

Took a look at your second source.
You REALLY think that is scholarly and not pushing an agenda?

You should read more scientific abstracts. There is no agenda in those. Just the data and the conclusions based on the data. The LAST people you should trust is a random blogger online.

 

[Direct Driver]

No. And if you knew the answer, you'd know it is factual.
Remember: I asked HOW, not if.
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education.This hasn't been up for debate for a long while.


Oh, rest assured, it is EXACTLY whta people think.
FYI...did you know that Mercury is also hotter than Neptune?

Yeah. You're going to have to start "sharing your knowledge" because, based on the curriculum I teach to students which is based on scientific research, what I have said is factual.
I'd appreciate some actual answers from you if you're willing to give them because at this point, I've said the correct answers so I'm curious what you're thinking is.

Yes I know. Because Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere to trap heat.
Do you think it is reasonable to compare the distances between Mercury and Venus and Venus and Mars?

OK, Two words: Atmospheric pressure.

What you've said is factual, but misses the point. Sure, CO2 "absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation" That's a fact. Where people go off the rails is when they then quote that fact to support all sorts of AGW nonsense. I assume you know what "AGW" means. Of course, they prefer "climate change" now, since everybody in the US is in a serious cold snap. And yes, I know that's just "weather", but it still influences the uninformed. And that's where political battles are won. And this whole AGW thing IS a political battle, quite literally for world dominance of the "average person."

The data simply doesn't support it.

I've presented two sites. Here's another:
Watts Up With That?

And this is another good youtube channel. I especially like this video because it shows how easy it is to fool people that are ignorant on an extremely complex subject. And some of these people end up having unbelievable hubris as they argue their point:

 

[ozso]

Took a look at your second source.
You REALLY think that is scholarly and not pushing an agenda?

You should read more scientific abstracts. There is no agenda in those. Just the data and the conclusions based on the data. The LAST people you should trust is a random blogger online.

What's the agenda?

 

[Direct Driver]

He who takes his science from YouTube 'experts' is destined for an eternity of ignorance - OB
​

Try reading some real science DD.

OB

You honestly think that is my only source? Is that your final answer?

To be clear, I DO believe that the depth of knowledge of most people, who's hearts and minds are the battleground for this whole thing, extends to having seen "An inconvenient truth". And Gore was successfully sued over nonsense in that movie.

 

[Direct Driver]

Took a look at your second source.
You REALLY think that is scholarly and not pushing an agenda?

Well, you have me on that one. Since the issue is so politicised and important, everyone has an agenda on this one. And the harder they try to make it look like they don't the more suspicious I am.

You should read more scientific abstracts. There is no agenda in those. Just the data and the conclusions based on the data. The LAST people you should trust is a random blogger online.

Some background: I used to have an "unsent" gmail email with hundreds of articles I had stored up for quick reference about 15 years ago. I now use an excel spreadsheet for links and downloaded "too many" PDF articles. I also started a thread on this subject back in 2006 that ended up with almost 7,000 posts before the site changed their format and all history was lost.

So, two things. I am not new to this; and I have followed my MO regarding researching controversial issues: Read both (all) sides to form my own opinion. Oh, and a third thing. I talked this thing out a long time ago. The only reason it's become an issue for me lately is that our new president just may try to bankrupt us over this thing. As long as Trump was there and did things like get us out of that ridiculous Paris accord, I felt like we were headed in the right direction, at least in the US. Those "salad days" are over. But there is no need to talk with internet strangers any more. I'm more of an action guy and am taking care of our own here where I live. Talk is fun, but only on a superficial level.

So I'll let you guys have at it at this point. It was fun to a point. This is the bottom line:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here is why so many people think they have a solid understanding of AGW or climate change thanks to CNN or reading a few articles or seeing a few graphs - but they don't have a clue:

Does this mean that those who have accused me of suffering from this effect also suffer from it, as they don't know what they don't know about me?