HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

Yes, there is a lot of question around what is motivating the "no AGW" crowd. It seems to have nothing to do with science and to be essentially political.

Even some oil companies are pushing for a tax on carbon. For example:
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2017/06/oil-companies-in-group-seeking-carbon-tax.html

There just isn't any foundation for the "no AGW" crowd other than pure and simple politics.

I'm not so sure the lack of teeth in the Paris agreement is a killing flaw. I see it as more serious that the USA is totally failing in world leadership on energy. And, it isn't as if Paris was going to solve that by having teeth.

Yes, we would be far better off if America had a leadership role in energy, if we were more science literate, if we had more robust ways of allowing science to inform public policy decisions.

 

I am of the belief that we are about to face a crisis that is so serious that
one of the only ways to solve the problem...... would be a consensus on addressing
rising ocean levels.

Which frankly might not be solvable through a carbon tax that could so easily be hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-experience-devaluation-of-the-dollar.515180/

Are tens of millions of Americans about to experience devaluation of the dollar?

Here is one possible response that could prevent the dollar from significantly decreasing .... and yes... this would require America begin to take a leadership role in addressing at least one important part of climate change.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tia-israel-and-jordan.506627/#post-1067598747


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-nova-scotia-israel-and-jordan.506627/page-3

 

I think the benefit of the carbon tax is limited to altering individual and corporate decision making. The resultant money would go into the general fund, offsetting the need for that amount of income tax.

Citizens would be encouraged to conserve and/or invest in conservation. They might buy insulation. They might put solar cells on their roofs (in fact, there are companies that will do that for free, sharing the cheap energy with the homeowner). They might take public transit a little more often. Etc.

It would shift corporations a little more toward efficiency, renewable energy, and conservation.

This would be a small move toward internalizing the cost of burning fossil fuels.

Just about every country in the world has fuel taxes. And, that has not caused them to become uncompetitive.

 

Are you in agreement with the statements by Tony Lovell that a massive depopulation in Europe resulted in rapid cooling........... as fields turned into forests?

If Lovell is correct about this.......... does this perhaps mean there is a rapid way to cool the climate?

https://permaculturenews.org/2012/1...ack-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth-tedx-video/


TONY LOVELL ON SOIL CARBON: PUTTING CARBON BACK WHERE IT BELONGS – IN THE EARTH (TEDX VIDEO)

Just for the record... I am not advocating depopulation....... I am right back to the Carl Cantrell theory that I quoted back in 2008:

http://bankingsystemsflaws.blogspot.ca/


Carl Cantrell.

 

I really like the ideas of permaculture. I've been in classes listening to people who are permaculture experts. My wife has education that has involved soils, insects, and some related areas. On a small scale it seems to work well.

So, I'm pretty convinced the ideas are sound. However, how much global impact they can have is something I just haven't thought about.

I should read more about it. It looks a little silly for me to have spent time on this but not to have asked questions about realistic limits on global impact.

 

It's been pointed out to you several times that this is *NOT* the case. The climate models *never* predicted the global warming holes that have been found in areas where CO2 concentration is the highest. The models continue to deviate further and further from the satellite and weather balloon data. And the models *still* don't incorporate the past twenty year hiatus well. There simply isn't any scientific theory that has been proven yet for why the hiatus is happening so how can the models allow for it?

You've been given the NASA links several times that show the heat did *NOT* go into the oceans. Why do you keep repeating this myth?

It's apparently not hyperbole!

 

No one can tell us how the heat would have gotten into the deep ocean. I suspect they think Jim Kirk is in orbit with the Enterprise and "beamed" it all there! And NASA says the deep oceans have *not* warmed. Guess what? Based on the newest, most accurate surface buoys the oceans are *colder* than we thought - which means ocean rise based on the temperature of the ocean going up is not a much as the models have shown! What did NASA do about this? They decided to manipulate the new, colder temps UP to match the older, warmer temps. Now the ocean rise studies still work!

This is why more and more people are losing faith in the models.

 

You appear to be asking for local predictions. I don't know of models that were built to do what you are asking.

My point remains.

 

"Deep oceans"?

Absolute temperature isn't what is interesting. Change is interesting. If the oceans are colder than we thought, the questions would include "for how long?", etc.

You misconstrued what NASA did.

 

Local predictions are combined to create the global models. I've given you the links on how climate models today are based on general circulation models which are, in turn, based on the Navier-Stokes equations. As the resolution of the grids used to calculate these GCM's get smaller and smaller they get closer to being more and more local weather predictions.

Stop posting AGW Bible dogma and actually learn something about the climate models. Willful ignorance is *NOT* a survival technique.

 

MALARKY!

Absolute temperatures are what determines the density and volume of the ocean which is used to estimate sea level rise. Get the absolute temperature wrong and the estimated sea level rise is wrong.

Absolute temperatures are what determines the growth and harvest potential of plants, not differential temps. Get the absolute temps wrong and the growth and harvest potentials are wrong!

go here: www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

"The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself."

I didn't misconstrue *ANYTHING* about what NASA did.

Why do you *ALWAYS* make unsupported claims expecting us to believe them? You've been proven wrong so many times *NO ONE* gives you any credence any longer!

 

No, you're talking about weather prediction. Global prediction is not based on local weather prediction.

 

Yes if it is every 5 to 7 thousand years, we would have records in the earth of such a cataclysmic event. Almost twice since the end of the last ice age 11 to 12 thousand years ago when it ended suddenly, even with huge floods of melting ice as seen in parts of this country.

 

Water expansion comes from CHANGE in temperature. One really needs information concerning change over time.

Now you are off topic.

[/QUOTE]The topic at that point was how NASA dealt with differences in temperature readings.

I don't know, upside. If I didn't mean so much to you I think you would go away.

Just a guess.

 

Why do you continue to insist on showing your IGNORANCE on this subject?

go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model

"GCMs and global climate models are used for weather forecasting, understanding the climate and forecasting climate change."

go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction

"A General Circulation Model (GCM) is a mathematical model that can be used in computer simulations of the global circulation of a planetary atmosphere or ocean. An atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) is essentially the same as a global numerical weather prediction model, and some (such as the one used in the UK Unified Model) can be configured for both short-term weather forecasts and longer-term climate predictions."

Why do you *never* provide any support for your assertions? Why must others *always* have to educate you? Are you incapable of using the internet?

 

The CHANGE in volume comes from a CHANGE in temperature. If you do not know the *absolute* temperature you cannot determine the original volume!

A volume expansion from 1 to 2 is far different than a volume expansion from 11 to 12!

The volumetric coefficient for water at 10degC is 0.000088. The volumetric coefficient for water at 20degC is 0.000207.

This is a HUGE difference. If you don't know the absolute temperature you simply cannot calculate the correct volume change! The volumetric coefficient continues to increase as the temperature goes up!

One REALLY needs the absolute temperature!

Meaning you have nothing to offer of any import! Absolute temperatures *do* determine plant growth and harvest. And all AGW studies I have been able to find assume maximum temperatures are going up which *hurts* crop growth and harvest if they are over 90degF. That may be an inconvenient truth for you to accept but it *is* the truth nonetheless!

You said:

"Absolute temperature isn't what is interesting. Change is interesting. If the oceans are colder than we thought, the questions would include "for how long?", etc.

You misconstrued what NASA did."


Again, I misconstrued NOTHING! Calculating sea water volume IS dependent on the absolute temperature. When NASA revised all the newer, more accurate sea temperature measurements UP instead of the older, less accurate temperatures DOWN they totally changed the calculations of sea volume change which has a large impact on sea level rise! All prior studies on sea level rise SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED! But NASA avoided the issue by revising the sea temps up - in essence they are lying to the public about sea level rise!

Why would I go away? It pains me for the public to be fooled by AGW religious dogma being put forth as truth when it is *NOT* the truth! I have an obligation as someone who has at least some grasp of the basic science involved to actually put forth the truth.

When you stop posting AGW Bible dogma lies then maybe I'll go away.

 

What you're reading here is NOT what you were claiming.

 

It's necessary to know the current temperature and the projected temperature at a future point in time. From that, one can figure out the expansion for a known volume over that period.

However, it is more complicated than that, because not all ocean water is at the same temperature, pressure, salinity, etc. Also, one may need to know about differences in density, as that would affect how heat moves.

I wouldn't call any temperature of the ocean "absolute". Ocean temperatures vary considerably and there is significant change over time throughout history.

There are many factors in agriculture. I have no idea what you mean by "absolute". Water is especially important.

You misconstrued their methodology in improving sea temp measurement. No, they absolutely are NOT lying.

I'm glad you're interested!

But, I see no signs of some sort of global conspiracy. In fact, such a conspiracy would be impossible.

 

I said: "Local predictions are combined to create the global models. I've given you the links on how climate models today are based on general circulation models which are, in turn, based on the Navier-Stokes equations. As the resolution of the grids used to calculate these GCM's get smaller and smaller they get closer to being more and more local weather predictions."

Which is *exactly* the same as ""A General Circulation Model (GCM) is a mathematical model that can be used in computer simulations of the global circulation of a planetary atmosphere or ocean. An atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) is essentially the same as a global numerical weather prediction model, and some (such as the one used in the UK Unified Model) can be configured for both short-term weather forecasts and longer-term climate predictions." (bolding mine, upside)

Do you not realize that posts are saved by the forum?

 

I have no problem with what I've said.

You should read it!

 

Ahhhhh..... Now you admit you *DO* need to know the absolute temperature! Exactly what *I* said. Knowing the temperature differential is *not* sufficient as you claimed!

SO WHAT? That doesn't invalidate the fact that my assertion, which you said was wrong, was actually *right*! This non sequitur isn't on point!

I never said or implied that the entire ocean is at one temperature! I said that to calculate sea volumes, which determines sea level rise, you *have* to know the absolute temperature. If that calculation requires an integral or even a sum of integrals you still have to know the absolute temperatures, temperature differences are not sufficient!

I TOLD YOU WHAT IS MEANT BY ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE!

I told you that when the temperature gets above 90degF (AN ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE) growth and harvest goes down! It doesn't matter what the water level is. To reach *maximum* production sufficient water *is* needed. But even if sufficient water is provided, growth and production go *down* with temps above 90degF, at least for most food crops!

You make a claim here with absolutely *NO* support for the claim. You need to show *how* I misconstrued what NASA did with the sea temperature measurements! When they manipulate the more accurate temperature to a less accurate temperature IT IS LYING. How can it be anything else! Do you have *anything* concrete to offer in defense of why they would use less accurate temperatures other than to not invalidate sea level rise calculation?

When there are limited data sets it doesn't require a global conspiracy! A compromised data set makes everything based on that compromised data set into garbage!

 

An absolute temperature is a temperature measured from absolute zero in Kelvins.

You're still not getting what NASA did to adjust ocean temperature readings to be more accurate.

 

What you've said is WRONG. I'm not surprised you have no problem with that, however.

Willful ignorance is *NOT* a survival trait!

 

SO WHAT? Do you know the relationship between centigrade (C) and Kelvin (K)?

They did *NOT* adjust the ocean temps to be more accurate. They adjusted them to be LESS accurate!

 

Wow! Awesome answer on this topic upside222....... I am curious what you personally think of the
Tony Lovell theories?

For the record, they sound very logical to me.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/its-the-ecology-stupid.512471/

https://permaculturenews.org/2012/1...ack-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth-tedx-video/

TONY LOVELL ON SOIL CARBON: PUTTING CARBON BACK WHERE IT BELONGS – IN THE EARTH (TEDX VIDEO)