Real Climate Science....refreshing!

[amanuensis63]

I just attended a climate conference focused mostly on the impact of climate change on high latitudes. It's amazingly refreshing to listen to REAL scientists talk about REAL science.

And I realize that almost none of the denialists or skeptics I read on these fora here have a clue as to the depth and complexity of real science. I've got a PhD in earth science and I find myself feeling like I'm drinking from the firehose just to keep up with the talks. The sheer volume of robust and solid science behind these investigations, people from all over the world, people from their early careers to one elder statesman of science in his 90's all talking about real numbers and real effects, is amazing.

It's nice to get away from denialists and scientific illiterates once in a while and actually rub shoulders with people who understand what they're talking about.

Today a lot of folks were talking about Antarctica. The thing denialists LOVE to talk about because they think sea ice increases on east Antarctica means AGW is a hoax. Funny thing is, these same skeptics have NO EARTHLY IDEA how complex the currents and teleconnections are in the circumpolar current that goes around Antarctica.

One talk today dealt with the disparity between West Antarctica and East Antarctica. The speaker noted that warm waters are brought in from the Atlantic and Indian oceans and spiral in clockwise around the continent and wind up upwelling near the Ross Ice shelf and the western side of Antarctica. The complex interplay of warm water upwelling against the bottom of the ice shelf, cooling and falling back down as Antarctic bottom water was an amazing discussion. The eastern half of Antarctica is not getting this warm upwelling of water in the same manner.

In addition I heard a lot about the change in wind patterns around Antarctica due to ozone depletion (a factor I'd heard before) which is thought to be pushing the sea ice out further.

But the number of graphs I saw today explaining the intricate water movement around Antarctica made me realize that skeptics and denialists who think the ice around Antarctica makes the AGW hypothesis a hoax have not a clue about how oceans actually work.

 

[eclipsenow]

Not just the sea ice, but the polar vortex is another complex counter-intuitive part of climate science. A warmer world = extra energy in the wind. This tightens the constant rotating 'hurricane' spinning around Antarctica, much like an ice-skater pulling in their arms spins tighter. Then what might have been rain falling on South Australia then gets dumped as snow inside this tighter vortex, resulting in at least one spot in Antarctica that's cooler than normal. A warmer planet can end up with cooler spots.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The amount of times these words are stated in a single post:
Science: 9
Complex: 4
Denialist: 4

And not a single thing meaningful.

 

[JacksBratt]

I just attended a climate conference focused mostly on the impact of climate change on high latitudes. It's amazingly refreshing to listen to REAL scientists talk about REAL science.

And I realize that almost none of the denialists or skeptics I read on these fora here have a clue as to the depth and complexity of real science. I've got a PhD in earth science and I find myself feeling like I'm drinking from the firehose just to keep up with the talks. The sheer volume of robust and solid science behind these investigations, people from all over the world, people from their early careers to one elder statesman of science in his 90's all talking about real numbers and real effects, is amazing.

It's nice to get away from denialists and scientific illiterates once in a while and actually rub shoulders with people who understand what they're talking about.

Today a lot of folks were talking about Antarctica. The thing denialists LOVE to talk about because they think sea ice increases on east Antarctica means AGW is a hoax. Funny thing is, these same skeptics have NO EARTHLY IDEA how complex the currents and teleconnections are in the circumpolar current that goes around Antarctica.

One talk today dealt with the disparity between West Antarctica and East Antarctica. The speaker noted that warm waters are brought in from the Atlantic and Indian oceans and spiral in clockwise around the continent and wind up upwelling near the Ross Ice shelf and the western side of Antarctica. The complex interplay of warm water upwelling against the bottom of the ice shelf, cooling and falling back down as Antarctic bottom water was an amazing discussion. The eastern half of Antarctica is not getting this warm upwelling of water in the same manner.

In addition I heard a lot about the change in wind patterns around Antarctica due to ozone depletion (a factor I'd heard before) which is thought to be pushing the sea ice out further.

But the number of graphs I saw today explaining the intricate water movement around Antarctica made me realize that skeptics and denialists who think the ice around Antarctica makes the AGW hypothesis a hoax have not a clue about how oceans actually work.

If it was so nice to get away from the "denialists"..... why come back here and poke 'em???

You will never convince me that the level of CO2 going from (what was it) 0.038% to 0.049% is going to cause climatic mayhem. Nope, not even if the Pope himself said it was true. Not if you got a thousand accredited "scientists" to swear it was true. AND especially not if Al Gore made a movie about it and then made millions from the panic.

 

[bhsmte]

I just attended a climate conference focused mostly on the impact of climate change on high latitudes. It's amazingly refreshing to listen to REAL scientists talk about REAL science.

And I realize that almost none of the denialists or skeptics I read on these fora here have a clue as to the depth and complexity of real science. I've got a PhD in earth science and I find myself feeling like I'm drinking from the firehose just to keep up with the talks. The sheer volume of robust and solid science behind these investigations, people from all over the world, people from their early careers to one elder statesman of science in his 90's all talking about real numbers and real effects, is amazing.

It's nice to get away from denialists and scientific illiterates once in a while and actually rub shoulders with people who understand what they're talking about.

Today a lot of folks were talking about Antarctica. The thing denialists LOVE to talk about because they think sea ice increases on east Antarctica means AGW is a hoax. Funny thing is, these same skeptics have NO EARTHLY IDEA how complex the currents and teleconnections are in the circumpolar current that goes around Antarctica.

One talk today dealt with the disparity between West Antarctica and East Antarctica. The speaker noted that warm waters are brought in from the Atlantic and Indian oceans and spiral in clockwise around the continent and wind up upwelling near the Ross Ice shelf and the western side of Antarctica. The complex interplay of warm water upwelling against the bottom of the ice shelf, cooling and falling back down as Antarctic bottom water was an amazing discussion. The eastern half of Antarctica is not getting this warm upwelling of water in the same manner.

In addition I heard a lot about the change in wind patterns around Antarctica due to ozone depletion (a factor I'd heard before) which is thought to be pushing the sea ice out further.

But the number of graphs I saw today explaining the intricate water movement around Antarctica made me realize that skeptics and denialists who think the ice around Antarctica makes the AGW hypothesis a hoax have not a clue about how oceans actually work.

Did Heiss approve this message?

 

[eclipsenow]

You will never convince me that the level of CO2 going from (what was it) 0.038% to 0.049% is going to cause climatic mayhem.

What if I injected your body with enough ebola virus to become 0.049% of your blood?

 

[amanuensis63]

The amount of times these words are stated in a single post:
Science: 9
Complex: 4
Denialist: 4

And not a single thing meaningful.

Actually the discussion of the East and West Antarctic impalance on ice accumulation as it relates to warm water upwelling and the ACC would be meaningful. But then it just proves my point that denialists on here have no clue how much science is actually out there.

They're too busy counting the number of times someone says "science".

 

[amanuensis63]

Not just the sea ice, but the polar vortex is another complex counter-intuitive part of climate science.

One researcher discussed that as well. There's a lot of complexity in regards to what they call "teleconnections" between things like sea ice extent in the Arctic and the Westerlies in the north and south hemispheres.

 

[amanuensis63]

If it was so nice to get away from the "denialists"..... why come back here and poke 'em???

More as a statement to my peeps, the folks who actually follow the science. To let them know that if you step away from the science illiterates who topped out at junior high science class, it is like stepping out into a fresh breeze.

PLUS it helps me realize that I, with a PhD in geology, am always amazed at how detailed and intense the science is around this, why would I expect a denialist on CF who barely stumbled through high school science would begin to understand what they are complaining about as a "hoax"?

You will never convince me that the level of CO2 going from (what was it) 0.038% to 0.049% is going to cause climatic mayhem.

See? It's comments like that show an astounding level of ignorance of the topic. As another poster noted, there are many things in your world that operate at very low levels.

But you have probably never worked out the Stefan Boltzman Equation for yourself, and you've probably never read any real science on the behavior of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...so why would you know anything about it?

Do people have to convince you? Well, only insofar as if you can vote you can presumably make it harder to make real changes that are needed on earth to address this problem. Maybe if you took a step back and realized you don't even begin to understand the basics of this topic you'd be a bit more open to allowing those that do to start addressing the problem.

Nope, not even if the Pope himself said it was true. Not if you got a thousand accredited "scientists" to swear it was true. AND especially not if Al Gore made a movie about it and then made millions from the panic.

And there we have it. You know Al Gore and the Pope....yet you don't know a single climate scientist by name.

That's all we need to know about your level of understanding of the topic.

 

[amanuensis63]

This was one of the illustrations that came up several times yesterday to discuss ice shelf melting around Antarctica and the complexity of the currents and water movement.

 

[JacksBratt]

What if I injected your body with enough ebola virus to become 0.049% of your blood?

If you think that this is in any way a parallel argument, it would show how ignorant you are when it comes to science.

How about this.....

You have an alcoholic drink and it has 0.038 % alcohol. To get you drunk quicker, the casino increases this % by 40% and now your drink is 0.049% alcohol.....It's not going to be even a start in changing anything.

 

[JacksBratt]

More as a statement to my peeps, the folks who actually follow the science.

Well, that could have been done with a simple PM not broadcasting your new found faith to everyone on a forum that will most certainly wake the masses and put you right back into the fray that you were so happy to be out of...

And there we have it. You know Al Gore and the Pope....yet you don't know a single climate scientist by name.

That's all we need to know about your level of understanding of the topic.

Well let me explain why I used those people. One is supposed to be the right hand of God to all of His people on earth and a stellar man of integrity.... The other made millions from a movie that was produced to launch the hoax to the masses and was believed to be well researched and documented while being backed by "scientists" and "scientific evidence".

IF you cannot believe those two...... everything else is questionable.

Sorry, Doctor, that you missed that relationship and train of thought.

 

[expos4ever]

You will never convince me that the level of CO2 going from (what was it) 0.038% to 0.049% is going to cause climatic mayhem.

How do you know that such an increase could not cause mayhem? This is a 30% increase. There are people walking around with blood sugar levels of 90. They are not diabetic nor in immediate danger of becoming diabetics. But bump that figure up by 30 % and you get a reading of 117. And doctors will tell you that you are now in real danger of becoming a diabetic.

The point is that one cannot assess the significance of, say, a 30 % change of some quantity without detailed knowledge of the degree to which variations in such a quantity affect the properties you are interested in studying (in this case, the properties of climate like temperature).

 

[lasthero]

Well, that could have been done with a simple PM not broadcasting your new found faith to everyone on a forum that will most certainly wake the masses and put you right back into the fray that you were so happy to be out of...




Well let me explain why I used those people. One is supposed to be the right hand of God to all of His people on earth and a stellar man of integrity.... The other made millions from a movie that was produced to launch the hoax to the masses and was believed to be well researched and documented while being backed by "scientists" and "scientific evidence".

IF you cannot believe those two...... everything else is questionable.

Sorry, Doctor, that you missed that relationship and train of thought.

You don't have to believe either of them. You can check the science for yourself.

 

[JacksBratt]

You don't have to believe either of them. You can check the science for yourself.

My comment was not a question of who you believe. The poster made a comment of how it was such a refreshing change or break from dealing with global warming deniers, then they come on a forum where there are such people, the subject of his torment, and tells everyone about this new found revitalization of his faith in the global warming.

That's like going to a Black Hawks game in Chicago and standing up with a microphone and stating how wonderful it was in Buffalo and to be away from all the idiots that cheer for the Hawks.......

 

[RickG]

If you think that this is in any way a parallel argument, it would show how ignorant you are when it comes to science.

How about this.....

You have an alcoholic drink and it has 0.038 % alcohol. To get you drunk quicker, the casino increases this % by 40% and now your drink is 0.049% alcohol.....It's not going to be even a start in changing anything.

Try doing the math on prescription drugs where the pill you take is 40 mg and your weight is 150 lbs. Guess it has not effect.

 

[eclipsenow]

Try doing the math on prescription drugs where the pill you take is 40 mg and your weight is 150 lbs. Guess it has not effect.

Also Jacks, how percentage of your blood volume (not even total body weight!) is a fatal snake bite?

 

[JacksBratt]

How do you know that such an increase could not cause mayhem? This is a 30% increase. There are people walking around with blood sugar levels of 90. They are not diabetic nor in immediate danger of becoming diabetics. But bump that figure up by 30 % and you get a reading of 117. And doctors will tell you that you are now in real danger of becoming a diabetic.

The point is that one cannot assess the significance of, say, a 30 % change of some quantity without detailed knowledge of the degree to which variations in such a quantity affect the properties you are interested in studying (in this case, the properties of climate like temperature).

Really? You don't get it?

Again with the non parallel argument. 30% increase in blood sugar is significant. A 40% raise to a guy making 500,000.00 per year, is significant. Raising something that is 380 ppm by 30% goes to 490 ppm or an increase of 110 ppm.

Let's put that in perspective. In a room 8.33 feet wide, 8.67 feet long and 8.0 feet high, ( about 1,000,000 sq inches)

Since 1 square foot has 1,728 square inches, it doesn't even come close to half of a square foot. That's not even a six by six box of air in the room. And an increase of much less. That's like an increase in the room of the box an orange would fit in.

Now spread that throughout the room and you can see how much dilution we have here.

I believe that the amount of moisture, dust, and other solids in the atmosphere would trump this in spades.

To add to that, the amount of CO2 in that little box is supposed to increase the temperature of the room, even if the air in that room was on top of a pool of water about 40 feet deep.

I'm going with the temperature of the water being the contributing factor to the temperature of that room.

 

[JacksBratt]

Also Jacks, how percentage of your blood volume (not even total body weight!) is a fatal snake bite?

Are you guy's actually saying that CO2 is as potent to the earths atmosphere as the venom of a snake bite is to the human body? Or a pharmaceutical drug?

And I thought the Ebola scenario was stretching it. C'mon, really guy's? Why not go all the way and say Cyanide or Ricin.

 

[JacksBratt]

Also Jacks, how percentage of your blood volume (not even total body weight!) is a fatal snake bite?

I was not talking about blood alcohol percent. I was talking about the percent alcohol in the drink.