Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[LekiM]

There are still many "needs work" signs taped up all over. But the two biggest are (1) air/ocean heat exchange - as mentioned in the 1st post, and (2) cloud processes - primarily large-scale convection.

Convection is sooper! important to not only atmospheric energy flow, but atmospheric mixing, atmospheric 'color' (as seen from space and the laws of thermodynamics) and composition. But there's not (yet) the computing power to appropriately handle the physics in a proper way. This has two impacts on weather/climate science:

a) It isn't quite possible to use the models to test how this part of atmospheric physics affects and responds to 'things'.
b) It leads to a large part of the uncertainty in climate prediction and analysis.
c) Lists really help the flow of a post don't they?

But, I will say that the capacity to handle (#2) is now there. I use it. It just takes up too much computer power so it's just not quite ready for prime time. But it will be soon.

#1 on the other hand? Well, the paper cited by SV 3rd Day's news article will hopefully help.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by LekiM

There are still many "needs work" signs taped up all over. But the two biggest are (1) air/ocean heat exchange - as mentioned in the 1st post, and (2) cloud processes - primarily large-scale convection.

Convection is sooper! important to not only atmospheric energy flow, but atmospheric mixing, atmospheric 'color' (as seen from space and the laws of thermodynamics) and composition. But there's not (yet) the computing power to appropriately handle the physics in a proper way. This has two impacts on weather/climate science:

a) It isn't quite possible to use the models to test how this part of atmospheric physics affects and responds to 'things'.
b) It leads to a large part of the uncertainty in climate prediction and analysis.
c) Lists really help the flow of a post don't they?

But, I will say that the capacity to handle (#2) is now there. I use it. It just takes up too much computer power so it's just not quite ready for prime time. But it will be soon.

#1 on the other hand? Well, the paper cited by SV 3rd Day's news article will hopefully help.

Thank you for coming out of the closet.

Here's some questions for you.

• Why has the terms "climate change" and "anthropogenic global warming" been melded in recent times to mean the same thing. Wouldn't a scientist oppose this misrepresentation of the "climate change" phrase?
• What's your opinion on the push to implement far reaching world wide economic policies based on the fact that "There are still many "needs work" signs taped up all over"?
• Would all of your colleagues still have a job if anthropogenic global warming was deemed not to be a problem of the severity as currently promoted?
• Why do you think the AGW theory issue is such a derisive issue whereas, for example, the theory of relativity is not?
• What is your opinion of the possibility that many of the "bad" outcomes of AGW would be negated by "good" outcomes? Has there been any published analysis of this?
• Has warming slowed since 1998 or hasn't it? What was actual average global temperature in 1998 vs 2014? How about 1934 vs 2014 and 1934 vs 1998, using both raw and homogenised data?
• What is the present rate of average global annual sea level rise?
• And finally as a scientist, what quantified effects on "climate change" do you think there would be if every country immediately implemented proposed carbon reduction policies?

And totally non related, but a very interesting experiment on human behavior are the Asch Conformity Experiments whereby it was demonstrated that people in a group's opinions could be changed as a result of group consensus, even if that consensus was wrong.

Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This "flaw" in human behaviour is probably the mechanism that is exploited to advantage in marketing and propaganda campaigns. For example the "97% Concensus" (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/); the consensus project) which is easily proved to be faulty, even by non-scientific types.

[Lake-Effect]

"Dear Leki - please explain to the cretins why I, Reefmagnet, am right and all you scientists are wrong and have misled us".

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And totally non related, but a very interesting experiment on human behavior are the Asch Conformity Experiments whereby it was demonstrated that people in a group's opinions could be changed as a result of group consensus, even if that consensus was wrong.

Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This "flaw" in human behaviour is probably the mechanism that is exploited to advantage in marketing and propaganda campaigns. For example the "97% Concensus" (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/); the consensus project) which is easily proved to be faulty, even by non-scientific types.

This is hilarious. The denier camp has toiled mightily to try to smear climate scientists with collusion, global conspiracy, data fudging, suppression of dissent... and now 'Asch conformity'.

Even after Leki spelled it out in detail, you really don't get the scientific process at all, do you?

Since you seem to get all your info from certain sites, perhaps you could explain just a little why the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists and all the 'alternative' science 'institutes' they created and fund are more trustworthy and less subject to bias than the IPCC, NOAA, NASA...the Australian Academy of Science...?

[Sailor Doug]

Too bad that none of the energy producer governments don't invest in non fossil energy. Even high density energy storage.
Finding a replacement for fossil fuels is appearing to be very difficult. Our species will be extinct if the run if climate change does not get us first.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Personally, I don't doubt climate change at all. In fact I'm going to put it right out there and state that, in my opinion, the Earth's climate's been changing for 4 billion years or so.

I even reckon that humans may even be responsible for some of it.

However, bleating on and on and on and on about it and blaming all negative impacting weather and geological events on it whilst offering no real solutions except for returning to the stone age is just silly. If we really want to make some effort to save the planet perhaps we should make cell phones that last 10 years - not two, and stop selling fruit and vegetables in ridiculous amounts of styrofoam packaging.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"Dear Leki - please explain to the cretins why I, Reefmagnet, am right and all you scientists are wrong and have misled us".



This is hilarious. The denier camp has toiled mightily to try to smear climate scientists with collusion, global conspiracy, data fudging, suppression of dissent... and now 'Asch conformity'.

Even after Leki spelled it out in detail, you really don't get the scientific process at all, do you?

Since you seem to get all your info from certain sites, perhaps you could explain just a little why the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists and all the 'alternative' science' institutes' they created and fund are more trustworthy and less subject to bias than the IPCC, NOAA, NASA...the Australian Academy of Science...?

You do a very good job of making yourself look like a fool.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You do a very good job of making yourself look like a fool.

Thanks.

I'm also a bit thick. For example if you truly "don't doubt climate change at all" and you even "reckon that humans may even be responsible for some of it" then why this incessant need to tear down the science and the people who do it?

If your target is really the media or a certain style of advocacy you think is 'alarmist'... again, why attack the scientists? "Asch conformity"

And finally, the oily elephant in the room which you refuse to touch:

perhaps you could explain just a little why the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists and all the 'alternative' science' institutes' they created and fund are more trustworthy and less subject to bias than the IPCC, NOAA, NASA...the Australian Academy of Science...?

[savoir]

" Has warming slowed since 1998 or hasn't it? "

Good news !

Not only has warming stopped but a cooling period has commenced. The effects will be obvious even to the warmistas in a couple of years time. Record cold weather from Alberta to Siberia is apparently not enough for those guys.

Ignore the claptrap about record hot years in places like Australia. The weather office there is run by lefties who still worship at the altar of Saint al of the Gore. Same for the UK MetOffice.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thanks.

I'm also a bit thick. For example if you truly "don't doubt climate change at all" and you even "reckon that humans may even be responsible for some of it" then why this incessant need to tear down the science and the people who do it?

If your target is really the media or a certain style of advocacy you think is 'alarmist'... again, why attack the scientists? "Asch conformity"

And finally, the oily elephant in the room which you refuse to touch:

Because I'm a skeptic, as opposed to a denier. A skeptic that questions both the fallacy and purpose of the need to claim global catastrophe. The fundamental science might be good, but there seems to be some evidence, already covered, that suggests that in some sectors, at least, manipulation of observations or exaggeration of results has occurred in order to support an objective rather than a conclusion based purely on unadulterated observations and measurement.

I don't bother with "big oil" because I don't believe it plays a significant role in changing the facts. I've mentioned quite a few times in counter argument that the IPCC is "big AGW". Both sides may have vested interests, but scientists still have to feed their families so somehow or another they need a source of funding for their activities.

And you do know that "Asch confrmity" is a reproducible experiment? What do you think was the intention of the "97% Consensus" paper by John Cook et al? Science or marketing/propaganda?

[Sailor Doug]

Climate change is happening. Global warming was a poor choice of wards. I am disappoint there is not a lot more effort into none carbon energy. Wind or solar need massive efficient storage to save us.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't bother with "big oil" because I don't believe it plays a significant role in changing the facts. I've mentioned quite a few times in counter argument that the IPCC is "big AGW". Both sides may have vested interests, but scientists still have to feed their families so somehow or another they need a source of funding for their activities.

'Big AGW'

It's utterly laughable to suggest that the money at stake with a scientist's salary or grants is anywhere near to the money in play in the fossil fuel industry. There is absolutely no comparison. Do you acknowledge no difference between business and science?

If you don't actually mean the scientists, then say so.

You're apparently blind to the fact that the vast majority of sources for anti-AGW 'science' and propaganda are set up and funded by some combination of the right wing and the fossil-fuel lobby.

Do the math - who has the most at stake in the debate over AGW?

And you do know that "Asch confrmity" is a reproducible experiment? What do you think was the intention of the "97% Consensus" paper by John Cook et al? Science or marketing/propaganda?

You want "Asch conformity" - look in a mirror.

btw, which part of the coal industry are you in? I can read a map.

[LekiM]

Dear ReefMagnet,

1st - I wanna sat that it is ultimately not a good idea to come out of the closet like this. But for some daggum reason I couldn't peel away from this thread, and finally it got to the point where it was like a giant painful whitehead that needed popping. So it was, and it felt great.

2nd - Thank you for your questions. But I am going to cop out here and not answer them. Why, well for one, none of them are necessarily related to my specific (read, esoteric) niche in the field - that being the interaction between ocean composition, waves and atmospheric composition and physics. (You may infer a connection between my career and obsession with boats & the ocean). Further, some of them address opinions or assessments of phenomena that I have no qualification to address. Some are also borderline sociological and/or political-science, which I have NO business answering. At least one was a bit of a bait, you have to admit.

I will (sorta) answer one:
Global warming was originally coined as a term describing the associated increase in thermal energy due to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases. It's meant to be a thermodynamic construct: the total thermal energy in the Earth system is stored in not only the temperature, but the wind, the water (vapor), the oceans, land, biology, salt content of the oceans... it goes everywhere. But it can all be construed as "warming" on a global scale. If you look back in the very early stages of this thread (perhaps single-digit page range), you'll see a post where I laid out three links that describe the processed and concepts that, if digested appropriately, would outline all you'd ever really need to know.

Climate change, in relation, is the net effect of the said additional thermal energy on the behavior of the parts of the climate system. We now don't necessarily address just the climate system, because, if anything, all this research has clearly demonstrated how inexorably linked just about everything out there is. So we now address the impacts on the 'Earth System' rather than just the climate system. Sorting out how the global warming emerges as changes in the Earth (or climate) system is thus reduced to the equivalent to highly detailed accounting ledger where the currency is Joules and the line items are things like 'arctic circumpolar current' or ENSO.

With all that that said: Can one of you answer something for me? Is it possible to safely adapt one of those barbecue propane tanks to your boat's propane system? I'm temped to do it for a short period, but only if it can be considered verifiably safe. I've got a good tank locker, new vapor-tight pass-thru, and a new soleoid. I just don't wanna fork the $$ for a 'marine' tank.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

'Big AGW'

It's utterly laughable to suggest that the money at stake with a scientist's salary or grants is anywhere near to the money in play in the fossil fuel industry. There is absolutely no comparison. Do you acknowledge no difference between business and science?

If you don't actually mean the scientists, then say so.

You love assumptions. I can see how you became an alarmist.

Science is a business. Or do only bona fide scientists fund themselves from charity donations?

You're apparently blind to the fact that the vast majority of sources for anti-AGW 'science' and propaganda are set up and funded by some combination of the right wing and the fossil-fuel lobby.

How's about the unvast minority that aren't? I'm not blind to the fact that character assassination by association is a primary tool of AGW proponents.

Do the math - who has the most at stake in the debate over AGW?

Yes, I can see a whole bunch of fossil fuel execs crying into their beers right now. How about you support your position with "the math"?

You want "Asch conformity" - look in a mirror.

You don't understand this particular psychology, do you?

btw, which part of the coal industry are you in? I can read a map.

You know, I've been waiting weeks to be asked that question. The answer is none; I've been self employed in the IT industry for the last 20 years or so and have no coal producers or distributors as clients. Besides, my region is also a big producer of renewable ethanol and is a relatively major eco-tourism destination. But that doesn't count, I guess?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by LekiM

Dear ReefMagnet,

1st - I wanna sat that it is ultimately not a good idea to come out of the closet like this. But for some daggum reason I couldn't peel away from this thread, and finally it got to the point where it was like a giant painful whitehead that needed popping. So it was, and it felt great.

2nd - Thank you for your questions. But I am going to cop out here and not answer them. Why, well for one, none of them are necessarily related to my specific (read, esoteric) niche in the field - that being the interaction between ocean composition, waves and atmospheric composition and physics. (You may infer a connection between my career and obsession with boats & the ocean). Further, some of them address opinions or assessments of phenomena that I have no qualification to address. Some are also borderline sociological and/or political-science, which I have NO business answering. At least one was a bit of a bait, you have to admit.

I will (sorta) answer one:
Global warming was originally coined as a term describing the associated increase in thermal energy due to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases. It's meant to be a thermodynamic construct: the total thermal energy in the Earth system is stored in not only the temperature, but the wind, the water (vapor), the oceans, land, biology, salt content of the oceans... it goes everywhere. But it can all be construed as "warming" on a global scale. If you look back in the very early stages of this thread (perhaps single-digit page range), you'll see a post where I laid out three links that describe the processed and concepts that, if digested appropriately, would outline all you'd ever really need to know.

Climate change, in relation, is the net effect of the said additional thermal energy on the behavior of the parts of the climate system. We now don't necessarily address just the climate system, because, if anything, all this research has clearly demonstrated how inexorably linked just about everything out there is. So we now address the impacts on the 'Earth System' rather than just the climate system. Sorting out how the global warming emerges as changes in the Earth (or climate) system is thus reduced to the equivalent to highly detailed accounting ledger where the currency is Joules and the line items are things like 'arctic circumpolar current' or ENSO.

I'll confess the Asch Conformity thing with it's example was a bit of a jiggle of the worm, but I do believe answers to the questions from someone at the "coal face", so to speak, would make interesting reading.

Related to what you have written above, two of my greatest bug-bears are the lack of attribution to existing natural variations and the concept of positive feedback. Call me simple, but regarding the latter. How on earth (lol) would the climate have remained so relatively stable over millenia if it was subject to positive feedback. Sooner or later it would have to swing one way or the other and stay there with little chance of rebound. Whilst there is some evidence in the historical record that this does indeed occur, the different is only around 10 degrees K. If we look at a planet, like earth, - let's say Venus - with a true positive feedback system happening then the climatic results are exactly what we would expect.

With all that that said: Can one of you answer something for me? Is it possible to safely adapt one of those barbecue propane tanks to your boat's propane system? I'm temped to do it for a short period, but only if it can be considered verifiably safe. I've got a good tank locker, new vapor-tight pass-thru, and a new soleoid. I just don't wanna fork the $$ for a 'marine' tank.

If I understand your question, over here we only use welded steel BBQ tanks. As long as the gas is propane and not something else like butane should be fine. There's different levels of coating for tanks ranging from a single coat air dry spray paint to galvanizing. The higher the coating protection rating the better the environmental corrosion protection. Even the crappiest coating will survive for some time if protected from saltwater and spray. If your talking about "Coleman" style disposable tanks than these are fine, too. I keep these onboard with an adaptor to replace the empty primary tanks which only ever run out mid use. Of course your regulations/tanks may vary.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Science is a business.

I understand your difficulty now.

Science is not a business. Science is a process for gaining and expanding our knowledge. The scientific process is our best system for minimising the effects of human errors, biases and outside influences. We have nothing better for this than science.

Also, have a look at the accounting ledger of your average university.

Businesses are set up to make money. Period. There is no higher goal for business than self-interest. This is by design, and not necessarily bad. (Capitalism, right?)

To suggest that climate science is simply pursuing self-interest, and the fossil-fuel industry isn't... is about 180 degrees off.

You don't understand this particular psychology, do you?

As you stated: ...the Asch Conformity Experiments ... demonstrated that people in a group's opinions could be changed as a result of group consensus, even if that consensus was wrong.

The cohort in the Asch experiments weren't subject matter experts or scientists working in their field, who by definition employ methodology designed to minimize such bias in their work.

Who make up the bulk of the public opposed to AGW science? Well, 'the public' is a clue that they're not subject matter experts. And you know what combination of groups and sites are feeding them their ammo. If everyone in your social/political circle is going "grumble grumble AGW commies/warmists/MMGW cultists" ... paging Dr Asch.

You know, I've been waiting weeks to be asked that question. The answer is none; I've been self employed in the IT industry for the last 20 years or so and have no coal producers or distributors as clients. Besides, my region is also a big producer of renewable ethanol and is a relatively major eco-tourism destination. But that doesn't count, I guess?

Well, it's been asked and answered. Thanks.

I'd like to stay out of your way now, since you and Leki seem to be having a much more productive discussion than I could manage. More please. We really aren't that far apart, other than politics.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I understand your difficulty now.

Science is not a business. Science is a process for gaining and expanding our knowledge. The scientific process is our best system for minimising the effects of human errors, biases and outside influences. We have nothing better for this than science.

<snip>

We'll have to agree to disagree. If you're on a payroll, the money comes from somewhere and with it comes budgets, bean counters, etc. That's commerce, that's business. You can be a non-profit business, but you are still a business.