Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

[The Barbarian]

I don't much talk to people who just make things up.

"No one is useless; they can always be a bad example." - my Mom.

 

[The Barbarian]

But if anyone disagrees with science with how it was done, would it help you better if they just said GOD DID IT and be done with it?

Science doesn't deal in the supernatural. It can't. So saying "Godmustadunnit" isn't much help to finding things out.
On the other hand, science isn't much good for faith; you can't put faith in science, because it depends on verification. So, saying scientists are finding evidence that life really was brought forth by the Earth" isn't much use in one's religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't much talk to people who just make things up.

Is everything you don't agree with considered fiction, though?

 

[AV1611VET]

"No one is useless; they can always be a bad example." - my Mom.

That's pretty good!

Kudos to your mom!

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't deal in the supernatural. It can't. So saying "Godmustadunnit" isn't much help to finding things out.
On the other hand, science isn't much good for faith; you can't put faith in science, because it depends on verification. So, saying scientists are finding evidence that life really was brought forth by the Earth" isn't much use in one's religion.

Tough question I asked, isn't it?

 

[Estrid]

"No one is useless; they can always be a bad example." - my Mom.

Yup.
" sweet are the uses of adversity,
like the toad, ugly and venemous..."

El Bard

 

[The Barbarian]

Tough question I asked, isn't it?

Nope. It's been asked and answered countless times. You just don't like the answer.

 

[eleos1954]

All the tropes and distortions wrapped up in one convenient package.

eh .... it's a matter of interpretation and what is believed ... we pick our poisons

All the tropes and distortions wrapped up in one convenient package

Same can be said about those who buy into the climate change agenda

 

[dlamberth]

Same can be said about those who buy into the climate change agenda

I don't know what agenda your talking about when with my own eyes I can see climate change happening.

 

[Estrid]

eh .... it's a matter of interpretation and what is believed ... we pick our poisons


Same can be said about those who buy into the climate change agenda

"Matter of interpretation and opinion".

Right! All interpretations are equally
valid; it's all just opinion.
So when your near and dear get mugged,
you can but agree when the judge throws the case
on the basis that the defense attorney has an opinion and interpretation exactly as valid as the prosecution.

Fair is fair, who can argue?


But wait! You contradict yourself saying those who
don't see it as you do because their side is dishonest!

" Buy in" and " agenda" both mean prejudiced, as in
pre judged, giving no consideration to evidence, and thus
their interpretation and opinions is invalid.

A bit droll, as all known data from a very wide
range of fields of research shows it is changing.
We suspect it's you who prejudice without knowledge.

This is a phys sci forum. You are required to present
evidence.

You've offered only an invidious opinion about the
scientific integrity of thousands of researchers,
and those who base their understanding on data.

Let's see some data, to show the world scientific
community is dishonest.

 

[Estrid]

I don't know what agenda your talking about when with my own eyes I can see climate change happening.

Hong Kong sea level has been rising an average of three cm per year for the past 70 years. That's real.
The "agenda" has not been detected.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's see some data, to show the world scientific community is dishonest.

Sure.

The Pluto Issue

And more:

There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification. Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, derided the IAU resolution. He also stated that because less than five percent of astronomers voted for it, the decision was not representative of the entire astronomical community. Marc W. Buie, then at the Lowell Observatory, petitioned against the definition. Others have supported the IAU, for example Mike Brown, the astronomer who discovered Eris.

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy".

The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto and a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day.

The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009 on the basis that Tombaugh was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU."

Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision. In 2006, in its 17th annual words-of-the-year vote, the American Dialect Society voted plutoed as the word of the year. To "pluto" is to "demote or devalue someone or something".

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

Hong Kong sea level has been rising an average of three cm per year for the past 70 years. That's real.

Then what's the deal?

If this has been going on for 70 years, why are scientists sounding an alarm now?

It's like they come up with something every generation to try and spook us.

Then some arc & spark when some don't take them seriously.

It's like crying wolf all the time.

 

[dlamberth]

Then what's the deal?

If this has been going on for 70 years, why are scientists sounding an alarm now?

It's like they come up with something every generation to try and spook us.

Then some arc & spark when some don't take them seriously.

It's like crying wolf all the time.

For over 70 years scientist have been warning about climate change because of the Co2 pumped into the air. Google it.

 

[AV1611VET]

For over 70 years scientist have been warning about climate change because of the Co2 pumped into the air. Google it.

Maybe the common people are anesthetized to their scare tactics by now?

They've heard it so long, it's been stored away in the Yawn Whocares department at Seers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

eh .... it's a matter of interpretation and what is believed ... we pick our poisons

No it isn't.

Same can be said about those who buy into the climate change agenda

Agenda? It is science and I treat it as such.

 

[eclipsenow]

Sure.

The Pluto Issue

And more:

There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification. Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, derided the IAU resolution. He also stated that because less than five percent of astronomers voted for it, the decision was not representative of the entire astronomical community. Marc W. Buie, then at the Lowell Observatory, petitioned against the definition. Others have supported the IAU, for example Mike Brown, the astronomer who discovered Eris.

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy".

The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto and a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day.

The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009 on the basis that Tombaugh was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU."

Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision. In 2006, in its 17th annual words-of-the-year vote, the American Dialect Society voted plutoed as the word of the year. To "pluto" is to "demote or devalue someone or something".

SOURCE

Sure there are some politics after vast new amounts of information are gathered and old naming and category conventions need to be changed. None of this changes the fact that if you were to spend the money, you could get 2 large glass bottles and put 2 thermometers in each. Add just a little bit more CO2 to one than the other. The temperature in that bottle WILL go up. It's called physics. It's called reality. As my signature says: In 1856 Eunice Foote discovers CO2 traps heat. That's how she did it! 168 years ago!

And climate deniers want to challenge this? It's like challenging the temperature water boils at at sea-level, or other old stuff you look up in old books. We know the basic physics. We KNOW it's warming the planet. The hardest part sometimes is tracking down exactly where that heat is going and what it is going to do. EG: 91% of it ends up in the ocean, which is a mathematically chaotic system and there are some mysteries and nuances in there that are challenging some ocean models in some parts of the globe. But generally speaking - on the largest models - the trends are predictable. And bad. And now being increasingly confirmed with every year. And the effects are too broad and universal and yet complicated to also spell out here in one easy go - which is why I'm still working on an acronym that is a sufficient summary of it all over in the other thread.
But the bottom line? It makes every charitable or social concern we care about worse. It hurts the poor and vulnerable. It wrecks economies so there's less to share with the sick and poor and elderly. It hurts agriculture so there's less food to go around. And if it gets too bad - it could cause major powers wars. Christians have no business coming in and sneering at all this. It's like someone going in and sneering at MS patients and saying "You just don't have enough faith to get better" or something like that. It's not kind, not accurate, and not very moral.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christians have no business coming in and sneering at all this.

This is what I sneer at:

First of all, tree huggers telling me we need to get onboard and start doing something about the climate, when said tree huggers:

1. drive gas-powered cars
2. have cement patios
3. have glass windows
4. use barbecue grills
5. have fireplaces
6. drink soda pop
7. use CO₂ extinguishers

Second of all, are you aware that the impact of one pound of N₂O is 265 times more potent than a pound of CO₂?

That's two hundred and sixty five.

So when I see tree huggers taking these issues seriously, I might consider how honest they are.

 

[sjastro]

No it isn't.

Agenda? It is science and I treat it as such.

The notion climate change deniers are uneducated or just plain dumb is not seen in the data when it comes to Republican supporters where the more educated they are the less worried they become about climate change.
When compared to Democrat supporters the polarization between Democrats and Republicans over climate change increases with increasing education.

​

The More Education Republicans Have, the Less They Tend to Believe in Climate Change (Published 2017)

Education’s effect is the opposite for Democrats. Exploring a partisan paradox.

www.nytimes.com

The reason given in the New York Times article is Americans view climate change as a political, not a science issue, and even the more educated will shape their opinions along partisan lines since they are more likely exposed to partisan messages along with information about the science.
What I find puzzling about this analysis the better educated should have greater critical thinking skills which comes with education in any field and should be able to differentiate the political rhetoric from the science.

I used to be an AGW skeptic, not based on religious or political reasons, but finding no convincing argument to differentiate it from natural climate change until a climate scientist pointed out lower stratospheric cooling was the smoking gun which was predicted in the 1960's and confirmed by satellite measurements in the late 1970s .

 

[dlamberth]

This is what I sneer at:

First of all, tree huggers telling me we need to get onboard and start doing something about the climate, when said tree huggers:

1. drive gas-powered cars
2. have cement patios
3. have glass windows
4. use barbecue grills
5. have fireplaces
6. drink soda pop
7. use CO₂ extinguishers

Second of all, are you aware that the impact of one pound of N₂O is 265 times more potent than a pound of CO₂?

That's two hundred and sixty five.

So when I see tree huggers taking these issues seriously, I might consider how honest they are.

We are trapped in the world we have created. I don't see a clear way out. Still, this proud tree hugger works to reduce not only my carbon footprint, but also clean the environment around me. Not being trapped in the commercial consumer world is a big part of that. Another, which is getting harder and harder to do, is staying away from plastic as much as I'm able.