Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists

[Pete in Panama]

Note this excerpt from NOAA website
Global warming is the long-term heating of Earth’s surface...

That's nice and it tells us nothing about what the greenhouse is doing. It doesn't matter if important people talk about the "surface". The surface is still just a surface and the greenhouse cannot transfer energy to a surface.

Can you work with me on this or should we just give it a rest?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I think it's funny that you look at your "high school formula"...

--and it's good that you're getting pleasure from our interchange. Please let me know whenever you want work with me on the heat transfer question that the greenhouse issue raises.

 

[sayak83]

That's nice and it tells us nothing about what the greenhouse is doing. It doesn't matter if important people talk about the "surface". The surface is still just a surface and the greenhouse cannot transfer energy to a surface.

Can you work with me on this or should we just give it a rest?

I have answered both your questions in the two posts I made. What remains unclear?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

--and it's good that you're getting pleasure from our interchange. Please let me know whenever you want work with me on the heat transfer question that the greenhouse issue raises.

Why did you ommit the rest of the post you are responding to? The funny part is the stuff you decided to remove from the quote.
It's also the part where the greenhouse issue and how it relates to heat is addressed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's nice and it tells us nothing about what the greenhouse is doing.

It's trappig heat. That's literally what the "greenhouse" part of "greenhouse gas" is all about.

Massive amounts of heat trapping gas is pumped into the atmosphere and the global tempurature is rising at record levels.
Well how about that.... could this perhaps be related?

It doesn't matter if important people talk about the "surface". The surface is still just a surface and the greenhouse cannot transfer energy to a surface.

Can you work with me on this or should we just give it a rest?

So trapping heat above the perma-frost is not going to make the perma-frost melt?
Is that what you are saying?

If you trap heat in the atmosphere, you know... the layer that surrounds the earth's surface, this is not going to affect the earth's surface in your opinion?

What do you think the greenhouse effect is?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What's important is what's happening..

Indeed, it is.

All I'm hearing is that the earth is warming and we know that's not true..

What does "the earth is warming" mean to you?
Does everything have to be taken literally? The above is NOT a "scientific calculation".

If one wants to know more, scientifically, then read the scientific blurb!

So. WHAT is warming and how do we know it's warming?

There are plenty of posts in this thread that explain that already.

 

[metis]

--and you seem unwilling to say whether or not you agree. Somehow we're not communicating. That's OK, we can drop this if you want.

Yes, I don't find going forth with you on this as I've read so many scientific articles on this that there is no real debate on what's generally happening and why.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Why did you ommit the rest of the post you are responding to? ...

...What remains unclear?

It's trappig heat...

...I don't find going forth with you on this as I've read so many scientific articles...

...What does "the earth is warming" mean to you?...

My thinking now is that we'd do well to focus on on point at a time.

First, let's all agree that it's stupid to say that over the past century the earth has warmed up 1C because of the greenhouse. Sure, lots of folks may take issue w/ me pointing this out, but from what I gather here we all agree that the earth can't be warmed 1C in just a century because of the greenhouse.

Finally, we'd do well to look for some kind of agreement on which portion of the earth's mass is heating. Saying the north pole is heating is silly. Saying just the equator heating is silly. Saying just the surface --and not the air above or the ocean below-- is silly. Some say that the only part of the earth that is heating up is the atmosphere. Others say what's heating up is the biosphere. Still others say it's just the top 2,000 meters of the ocean that's heating up (which would make all land based temp measurements irrelevant).

If we're taking this greenhouse stuff seriously then we got to do the heavy lifting of defining our terms.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If we're taking this greenhouse stuff seriously..

Well, are you?

 

[metis]

Saying the north pole is heating is silly.

Well, tell that to those who live in Greenland and Siberia that as I'm sure they'll have something to say about that. Same with those who work in Antarctica as a friend of mine does.

 

[sayak83]

My thinking now is that we'd do well to focus on on point at a time.

First, let's all agree that it's stupid to say that over the past century the earth has warmed up 1C because of the greenhouse. Sure, lots of folks may take issue w/ me pointing this out, but from what I gather here we all agree that the earth can't be warmed 1C in just a century because of the greenhouse.

Finally, we'd do well to look for some kind of agreement on which portion of the earth's mass is heating. Saying the north pole is heating is silly. Saying just the equator heating is silly. Saying just the surface --and not the air above or the ocean below-- is silly. Some say that the only part of the earth that is heating up is the atmosphere. Others say what's heating up is the biosphere. Still others say it's just the top 2,000 meters of the ocean that's heating up (which would make all land based temp measurements irrelevant).

If we're taking this greenhouse stuff seriously then we got to do the heavy lifting of defining our terms.

Maybe you did not see this post?
Post in thread 'Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists' https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/human-%E2%80%98behavioural-crisis%E2%80%99-at-root-of-climate-breakdown-say-scientists.275574/post-8477193
Scientists have already quantified how much of the extra thermal energy is being absorbed by which parts of the earth.
Does that answer your questions?

Edit: The linking function is not working. It's post 158 of this thread

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My thinking now is that we'd do well to focus on on point at a time.

It's all the same point.

Humans pump massive amounts of greenhouse gases in atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases trap heat
Global tempurature goes up

It's not hard.

First, let's all agree that it's stupid to say that over the past century the earth has warmed up 1C because of the greenhouse.

Why is that stupid? See above. Gas traps heat, tempurature goes up. What's "stupid" about that?

Sure, lots of folks may take issue w/ me pointing this out, but from what I gather here we all agree that the earth can't be warmed 1C in just a century because of the greenhouse.

Finally, we'd do well to look for some kind of agreement on which portion of the earth's mass is heating. Saying the north pole is heating is silly. Saying just the equator heating is silly. Saying just the surface --and not the air above or the ocean below-- is silly. Some say that the only part of the earth that is heating up is the atmosphere. Others say what's heating up is the biosphere. Still others say it's just the top 2,000 meters of the ocean that's heating up (which would make all land based temp measurements irrelevant).

If we're taking this greenhouse stuff seriously then we got to do the heavy lifting of defining our terms.

Surface tempurature as measured at the surface, goes up. Heat that normally escapes the earth, is trapped by greenhouse gases. That makes for a hotter atmosphere which make for hotter surface temperatures. The excess heat is also disruptive to rather delicate eco-systems.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...Saying the north pole is heating is silly....

...Surface tempurature as measured at the surface, goes up. Heat that normally escapes the earth, is trapped by greenhouse gases. That makes for a hotter atmosphere which make for hotter surface temperatures. The excess heat is also disruptive to rather delicate eco-systems.

...Well, tell that to those who live in Greenland and Siberia that as I'm sure they'll have something to say about that...

Let's work together on this please.

If we only have one point that's heating up, and all the points around it don't change in temperature, then the localized temperature fluctuation will resolve itself w/o problems. Think of it this way, if one gram of water were to warm up 1C, while the entire ocean stayed the same temp, then we'd have to say that the average temp of the ocean showed no measurable change. Same w/ saying a "surface" is heating up. We need to know the average temperature of the mass, not the localized temp of just the surface.

Are we still together?

 

[Pete in Panama]

...Scientists have already quantified how much of the extra thermal energy is being absorbed by which parts of the earth...

Seems like we're not communicating here.

Many people say the earth has heated up 1C over the past century. If they say this is caused by human green-house action then they're wrong because the earth is too massive for any part of 200 terawatts to make that much of a temp. difference. It doesn't matter if "scientists" say so. If "scientists" said that water wasn't wet they'd be wrong.

This is the difference between what "scientists" say and what science is.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...If we're taking this greenhouse stuff seriously...

Well, are you?

So it looks like the reason we're not communicating is that the general mode of this forum is conflict/confrontation, and my interest is consultation. That's fine, I can pull back, and I do thank you for your time and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seems like we're not communicating here.

Many people say the earth has heated up 1C over the past century. If they say this is caused by human green-house action then they're wrong because the earth is too massive for any part of 200 terawatts to make that much of a temp. difference. It doesn't matter if "scientists" say so. If "scientists" said that water wasn't wet they'd be wrong.

This is the difference between what "scientists" say and what science is.

For crying out loud.

When it is said that "the earth is heated up", people are talking about measured temperature.
Thus surface temp / atmospheric temp.

And the reason for this heating is the massive amounts of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So it looks like the reason we're not communicating is that the general mode of this forum is conflict/confrontation, and my interest is consultation..

No .. you avoid the question. Do you take man-made climate-change seriously?
Naturally, you are not obliged to answer if you don't want to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's work together on this please.

If we only have one point that's heating up, and all the points around it don't change in temperature, then the localized temperature fluctuation will resolve itself w/o problems. Think of it this way, if one gram of water were to warm up 1C, while the entire ocean stayed the same temp, then we'd have to say that the average temp of the ocean showed no measurable change. Same w/ saying a "surface" is heating up. We need to know the average temperature of the mass, not the localized temp of just the surface.

Are we still together?

Greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere, spread out in the atmosphere.

 

[sayak83]

I did not disagree with that. But I stated that the science of melting is far less well understood than the science of climate change. This I can easily show if you need me to.

Seems like we're not communicating here.

Many people say the earth has heated up 1C over the past century. If they say this is caused by human green-house action then they're wrong because the earth is too massive for any part of 200 terawatts to make that much of a temp. difference. It doesn't matter if "scientists" say so. If "scientists" said that water wasn't wet they'd be wrong.

This is the difference between what "scientists" say and what science is.

No. I have shown clearly that scientists are saying that surface air temperature of earth has increased by 1.2 C over the last 200 or so years. I challenge you to find a single scientific paper that says that the entire earth has heated up by 1.2 C. The fact that you are repeating your false accusation again despite being corrected shows that you are not here to know about the truth but rather want to score cheap points.

 

[metis]

If we only have one point that's heating up, and all the points around it don't change in temperature, then the localized temperature fluctuation will resolve itself w/o problems.

Then you must believe that those climate scientists are nothing less than ignorant and/or corrupt dolts. I've read quite a bit of their research in Scientific American and numerous other sources, and it is not they who are so ignorant. Maybe check out NOAA, NASA, etc.