Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

[eclipsenow]

Florida insurance company drops thousands of homeowners in SWFL ahead of hurricane season​

The letters from ASI-Progressive started going out this week. The company reported last year it planned to shed about 100,000 policies.

John Cunniff of Bonita Springs said he had received one of the letters and immediately began looking for replacement coverage.

“It simply said they were reducing their hurricane exposure,” Cunniff said.

And so it starts. Australia is facing a similar debate about towns in the bush and floodplains. How is this still a mystery to politicians when I was able to blog about it 15 years ago - and I only have a social sciences background!?

 

[FredVB]

There is no doubt, from everything I am seeing, climate is changing drastically.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no doubt, from everything I am seeing, climate is changing drastically.

If you weren't fed that information from outside sources, would you even know it?

 

[Shemjaza]

If you weren't fed that information from outside sources, would you even know it?

It's more obvious if you travel to Arctic regions

 

[Ophiolite]

If you weren't fed that information from outside sources, would you even know it?

You seem to have stumbled across what is arguably one of the great advantages of communication - it is a very effective way of learning things. You really ought to give it a try sometime.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to have stumbled across what is arguably one of the great advantages of communication - it is a very effective way of learning things. You really ought to give it a try sometime.

Sure thing:

 

[eclipsenow]

You seem to have stumbled across what is arguably one of the great advantages of communication - it is a very effective way of learning things. You really ought to give it a try sometime.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to have stumbled across what is arguably one of the great advantages of communication - it is a very effective way of learning things. You really ought to give it a try sometime.

Sure thing:

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope you're getting the idea, Ophiolite, that communications can work both ways.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I hope you're getting the idea, Ophiolite, that communications can work both ways.

You may have missed that the way you formulated your statement means that we can't know what the price of gasoline is today or what's showing at the Metroplex, of our own personal knowledge, without "information from outside sources"

 

[AV1611VET]

You may have missed that the way you formulated your statement means that we can't know what the price of gasoline is today or what's showing at the Metroplex, of our own personal knowledge, without "information from outside sources"

In order to get movie goers to see The Helstrom Chronicle, producers touted it as a sci-fi movie.

 

[Ophiolite]

I hope you're getting the idea, Ophiolite, that communications can work both ways.

Yes, but you missed the point that your communications are examples of the distortion, manipulation, or denial of information and it is seriously depressing to witness the confidence with which you espouse nonsense. My New May's Resolution: avoid responding to de facto trolls for at least a month.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but you missed the point that your communications are examples of the distortion, manipulation, or denial of information and it is seriously depressing to witness the confidence with which you espouse nonsense.

Tell me what information I denied.

I asked if Fred wasn't fed that information, would he even know it?

I have a feeling he wouldn't.

Nor would you.

But ... please ... feel free to tell me what information I "distorted, manipulated, or denied"?

 

[AV1611VET]

My New May's Resolution: avoid responding to de facto trolls for at least a month.

That means for a month you won't make yourself look bad.

 

[eleos1954]

You have confirmed a theory of mine that you are anti-science in the guise of creationism.
You do not accept climate science nor evolution because you see science in general as an attack on your faith.
Rather than coming straight out and admitting it, attempting to intellectualize your prejudices with the claim time is a human invention which in some bizarre way invalidates scientific theories is not only pure nonsense but disingenuous.

I think it is a bit rich to claim biblically we have the responsibility of being caretakers for the earth while at the same time quoting Isaiah 51:6 that the earth’s fate has already been sealed.
You are prepared to go to any lengths to deny it was the very scientific theories that predicted climate warming was caused by humans and is supported by observations.
To put it bluntly claiming climate science has been wrong about its predictions by conveniently confusing the science with alarmism is being deceptive.

You have confirmed a theory of mine that you are anti-science in the guise of creationism.

and .... you have confirmed a theory of mine that you are anti-creationism in the guise of evolution.

You are prepared to go to any lengths to deny it was the very scientific theories that predicted climate warming was caused by humans and is supported by observations.

The observations have been that climate has and does change ...

Scientists cannot “prove” current warming is not natural Climate scientists can not prove that the current warming is not due to natural processes and therefore can not claim with certainty that the warming is due to human interference.

attempting to intellectualize your prejudices with the claim time is a human invention which in some bizarre way invalidates scientific theories is not only pure nonsense but disingenuous.

theories (based on climate models) ... not fact ... who is being disingenuous?

I think it is a bit rich to claim biblically we have the responsibility of being caretakers for the earth while at the same time quoting Isaiah 51:6 that the earth’s fate has already been sealed.

I think it is a bit rich to claim biblically we have the responsibility of being caretakers for the earth while at the same time quoting Isaiah 51:6 that the earth’s fate has already been sealed.

The creation of mankind is God's most cherished creation and our current home is earth .... we are to take care of our home while we are living here .... it's logical to do so. We know at any time our physical living quarters can be destroyed by a natural cause of some kind (imagine if Yellowstone was to erupt in a big way) ... but even so ... we take care of our homes ... so while we are living here we are to take care of our earthly home ... even though we do know someday it will be destroyed ... we do not know when that will happen ... so yeah until that happens we are to take care of it.

Back to time ... the major pillar of evolution (fundamental to it) ....

Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real (mind), time is not fundamentally real.

Existence of time as a fourth dimension can only be theorized.

Can anyone think in four dimensions?

You can't. There are only three spatial dimensions. And beyond that, you can't even think of a fourth spatial dimension, because our brains operate in a three-dimensional world (there are some people who claim that they can imagine a fourth dimension (or more)... the reality is .... it is UNKNOWN.

Time being a 4th dimension ... or not ... is unsettled science and always will be.

 

[Ophiolite]

You have confirmed a theory of mine that you are anti-science in the guise of creationism.
You do not accept climate science nor evolution because you see science in general as an attack on your faith.
Rather than coming straight out and admitting it, attempting to intellectualize your prejudices with the claim time is a human invention which in some bizarre way invalidates scientific theories is not only pure nonsense but disingenuous.

I think it is a bit rich to claim biblically we have the responsibility of being caretakers for the earth while at the same time quoting Isaiah 51:6 that the earth’s fate has already been sealed.
You are prepared to go to any lengths to deny it was the very scientific theories that predicted climate warming was caused by humans and is supported by observations.
To put it bluntly claiming climate science has been wrong about its predictions by conveniently confusing the science with alarmism is being deceptive.


and .... you have confirmed a theory of mine that you are anti-creationism in the guise of evolution.



The observations have been that climate has and does change ...

Scientists cannot “prove” current warming is not natural Climate scientists can not prove that the current warming is not due to natural processes and therefore can not claim with certainty that the warming is due to human interference.



theories (based on climate models) ... not fact ... who is being disingenuous?

I think it is a bit rich to claim biblically we have the responsibility of being caretakers for the earth while at the same time quoting Isaiah 51:6 that the earth’s fate has already been sealed.

The creation of mankind is God's most cherished creation and our current home is earth .... we are to take care of our home while we are living here .... it's logical to do so. We know at any time our physical living quarters can be destroyed by a natural cause of some kind (imagine if Yellowstone was to erupt in a big way) ... but even so ... we take care of our homes ... so while we are living here we are to take care of our earthly home ... even though we do know someday it will be destroyed ... we do not know when that will happen ... so yeah until that happens we are to take care of it.

Back to time ... the major pillar of evolution (fundamental to it) ....

Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real (mind), time is not fundamentally real.

Existence of time as a fourth dimension can only be theorized.

Can anyone think in four dimensions?

You can't. There are only three spatial dimensions. And beyond that, you can't even think of a fourth spatial dimension, because our brains operate in a three-dimensional world (there are some people who claim that they can imagine a fourth dimension (or more)... the reality is .... it is UNKNOWN.

Time being a 4th dimension ... or not ... is unsettled science and always will be.

Would you like to edit that so that quotes and responses are properly attributed?

 

[eleos1954]

Good grief.
When scientists make predictions particularly of a quantifiable nature what are they supposed to do?
Time machines haven't been invented yet, we can't travel into the future to check our theories.
The only step is to construct a model based on scientific theories involving thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and computer science which makes predictions and as shown in post #520, climate models from 2004 have accurately predicted temperature changes confirmed by measurements made some twenty years later.

climate models from 2004 have accurately predicted temperature changes confirmed by measurements made some twenty years later.

basing a climate model and looking at 20 years? LOL

Since models only approximate natural phenomena, they are inherently inexact. The mathematical description can be imperfect and/or our understanding of phenomenon may not be complete.

According to science ... Has the Earth been warmer in the past than it is today True or false?

Even after those first scorching millennia, however, the planet has often been much warmer than it is now. One of the warmest times was during the geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago. Conditions were also frequently sweltering between 500 million and 250 million years ago.

I understand the use of models (and they are interesting to look at) ... but the fact is ... they are not proven fact

scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world

 

[Hans Blaster]

basing a climate model and looking at 20 years? LOL

Predictions are better than post-dictions. That was the point. You dismiss climate models in general and I presume the ones used to forecast forward from today. The accuracy of the past model demonstrates the usefulness of the model to cover future conditions.

Since models only approximate natural phenomena, they are inherently inexact. The mathematical description can be imperfect and/or our understanding of phenomenon may not be complete.

You write this as if the models are simple or crude. They are not. They are detailed calculations that require significant computational effort. We fully understand the limitations of various models.

According to science ... Has the Earth been warmer in the past than it is today True or false?


Even after those first scorching millennia, however, the planet has often been much warmer than it is now. One of the warmest times was during the geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago. Conditions were also frequently sweltering between 500 million and 250 million years ago.

As you have no doubt already been told. It is not the specific value of the past global average temperature that matters, but the impact to *US* in the *PRESENT DAY* of *RAPID* change in temperature and the consequences of it including massive economic damage. Our society and economy is built around the climate being what it is, the availability of fresh water being what it is and the location of the sea coasts being where they are. A rapid change in climate at our own hands would be extremely disruptive to humanity.

I understand the use of models (and they are interesting to look at) ... but the fact is ... they are not proven fact

scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world

 

[sjastro]

and .... you have confirmed a theory of mine that you are anti-creationism in the guise of evolution.

I suggest you restructure your post by getting the quotes sorted out.

If you look at my posting history, I very rarely engage in creationism vs evolution debates, I prefer to stick to subjects involving mathematics and physics which is what climate science and this thread is about.
All I have pointed out are your attempts in derailing this thread by turning it into an anti-science rant and a support for creationism with your “time is made up which undermines evolution” nonsense.

The observations have been that climate has and does change ...

Scientists cannot “prove” current warming is not natural Climate scientists can not prove that the current warming is not due to natural processes and therefore can not claim with certainty that the warming is due to human interference.

Here you display willful ignorance, you do even bother reading the many posts which show how climate scientists are able to differentiate between AGW and natural warming and the evidence which supports this.

Here is an example.

Uncharted Territory, rapid warming greatly exceeds models' forecasts

Funny, when I go looking, I find articles like these: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Without%20carbon%20dioxide%2C%20Earth's%20natural,causing%20global%20temperature%20to%20rise...

www.christianforums.com

theories (based on climate models) ... not fact ... who is being disingenuous?

Another example for your willful ignorance, how many times have posters over the years emphasized that theories cannot be proven and therefore are not based on facts.
AGW is supported not proven by observations in this case the troposphere is warming up and the lower stratosphere is cooling.

The creation of mankind is God's most cherished creation and our current home is earth .... we are to take care of our home while we are living here .... it's logical to do so. We know at any time our physical living quarters can be destroyed by a natural cause of some kind (imagine if Yellowstone was to erupt in a big way) ... but even so ... we take care of our homes ... so while we are living here we are to take care of our earthly home ... even though we do know someday it will be destroyed ... we do not know when that will happen ... so yeah until that happens we are to take care of it.

What a load of rubbish, being a creationist and therefore anti-science as a default position is why you reject AGW and therefore you have no responsibly in caring for the environment as you would like to kid yourself it into thinking it is beyond one’s control of doing so.

Back to time ... the major pillar of evolution (fundamental to it) ....

Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real (mind), time is not fundamentally real.

Do I need to say anything further of trying to derail this thread with the constant references to evolution and time.

What is quite obvious in your posts is how you attempt to use science to support your confirmation bias without understanding what the science is about.
Quantum mechanics is known as a first order approximation which doesn’t involve relativity and is useful in determining the energy levels of the hydrogen atom and a theory for chemical bonding as examples.

Quantum field theories also known as relativistic quantum mechanics combines special (not general) relativity and forms the backbone of particle physics.
Quantum field theories do use the concept of relativistic time and are the most accurate theories known in physics which makes your claim of time being a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics complete utter nonsense.

Existence of time as a fourth dimension can only be theorized.

Can anyone think in four dimensions?

You can't. There are only three spatial dimensions. And beyond that, you can't even think of a fourth spatial dimension, because our brains operate in a three-dimensional world (there are some people who claim that they can imagine a fourth dimension (or more)... the reality is .... it is UNKNOWN.

Time being a 4th dimension ... or not ... is unsettled science and always will be.

And your point being…………
The evidence of time as a fourth dimension expressed in terms of time dilation is overwhelming.

Experimental testing of time dilation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Space-time is a mathematical concept which is found to have a physical reality as evidenced by the existence of energy in a quantum vacuum.
This is how many theories in physics originate, they start off as purely mathematical ideas such as Riemannian geometry but when applied to general relativity have a physical significance in describing space time curvature such as the gravitational bending of light.

 

[sjastro]

basing a climate model and looking at 20 years? LOL

Since models only approximate natural phenomena, they are inherently inexact. The mathematical description can be imperfect and/or our understanding of phenomenon may not be complete.

According to science ... Has the Earth been warmer in the past than it is today True or false?

Even after those first scorching millennia, however, the planet has often been much warmer than it is now. One of the warmest times was during the geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago. Conditions were also frequently sweltering between 500 million and 250 million years ago.

I understand the use of models (and they are interesting to look at) ... but the fact is ... they are not proven fact

scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world

Along with your lack of understanding of climate science is the on going conflating of models and theories with facts and not realising climate models are not based on geological time scales.

The climate in the past was warmer where both troposphere and lower stratosphere were warmer; this was a consequence of natural warming.
AGW cools the lower stratosphere which natural warming cannot explain.

This how science works a hypothesis in the form of a prediction was proposed in the 1960s to differentiate between natural and AGW which became a theory supported by satellite measurements in the late 1970s.