Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Mikemcc]

a) They claimed "no evidence of coral bleaching until recent decades" and we both agree this is false.
b) The cite (Abram) does not support their claim. I can cite Bohr (1921) in support of anything, and if you don't look it up, won't I look erudite?

I admit that I haven't looked at it, but how can you seriously quote a paper from 1921, when there are papers from THIS year that say there are serious risks. That's laughable.

 

[Mikemcc]

Why call this statement "fantasitc"?
People made claims for the effect of the atmosphere's insulation on Earth's surface temperature, so it's relecant to consider what insulation van and cannot do. Seems to me anyway.

By 'people' I assume that means 'I'. Nobody else mentioned insulation, except in response to your usage.

Any thoughts on post 6280 yet or is it just too awkward for you?

 

[Mikemcc]

Look, (x a-units) /(y a-units/year) = (hx b-units/(hy b-units per year) =x/y years whether "_-units" is pounds or slugs, kilos or newtons.

There's at least one honest person on the believers' side of this discussion:...
...

Your problem is conceptual, to say the least. But I can understand how someone who fail to grasp such evident conceptual difference may think that the change in value doesn't matter. It's even predictable

Suddenly I'm your friend...

post 6280...?

 

[Mikemcc]

Anybody see anything about measurable physical variables in the above?

Yes, part of my job concerns test documentation, the last couple of years I have have to give more than a few engineers a smack about using the term weight, I point out they mean mass. Mass is an easily defined universal value, whereas weight has a number of variabilities. But then we are testing in the realms of milligrams not millions of tonnes.

Your accusation still has no merit though.

 

[Mikemcc]

This is baloney. Darwin mentioned bleaching (in Voyage of the Beagle or On the Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. I don't remember which. I last read __...Coral Reefs__ decades ago and __Voyage a few years ago.). Reef corals die (and turn white) whenever a year-record low tide coincides with a sunny midday. Also, that first link (Abram) does not support the statement "no signs of bleaching dating back many thousands of years, until recent decades". It describes coral death as a result of a periodic event (Indian Ocean oscilation) and exceptional terrestrial event (forest fire).

Beware your continued ignorance about Skeptical Science,

Anecdotes do not counter 12 studies quoted on that SkS page, plus the one that I quoted on post 6280, that you continue to ignore...

Bleaching is caused by hot 'events', if a a regions average temperature increases, those events happen more frequently. Even worse, if the mean increases and the variability increases then the situation is even worse!

 

[Mikemcc]

Take that up with the ignoramuses at Skeptical Science. We agree.

Please cite where SkS say otherwise.

I think you're waffling (again)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Your planet is called the same as ours! But what differences our earths is yours being perfectly spherical, even and shallow, and that your planet doesn't rotate on any possible axis. In our Earth we have to be more careful about these concepts.

But you don't, if you talk to anyone who isn't out to score debate points. The difference in gravity between the peak of Aconcogua, Malibu pier, and the shore of the Dead Sea is insignificant (we're rounding to one or two decimal points in scientific notation, (e.g., 5.3 x 10^18) remember). The difference rotation makes is the same as the difference between your weight at the North pole and at Quito, Equador or Conakry, Guinea.

Look, Ma, no insults!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I admit that I haven't looked at it, but how can you seriously quote a paper from 1921, when there are papers from THIS year that say there are serious risks. That's laughable.

Neils Bohr was a physicist. I doubt he wrote anything about corals or weather. I just made up that reference to make the point, if you don't check a citation it looks like support (Sokol, Social Text, 1996). The ...people... at Skeptical Science cited a paper that does not support the point they claim it supported.

 

[Mikemcc]

Neils Bohr was a physicist. I doubt he wrote anything about corals or weather. I just made up that reference to make the point, if you don't check a citation it looks like support (Sokol, Social Text, 1996). The ...people... at Skeptical Science cited a paper that does not support the point they claim it supported.

Really? Where? Your claim, yet (not) surprisingly no supporting evidence...

 

[Mikemcc]

Neils Bohr was a physicist. I doubt he wrote anything about corals or weather. I just made up that reference to make the point, if you don't check a citation it looks like support (Sokol, Social Text, 1996). The ...people... at Skeptical Science cited a paper that does not support the point they claim it supported.

So you admit to being a liar? Whats the point of the ellipsis about the term people at SkS? Are you making some vague point about them, expressing frustration, or what?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes, part of my job concerns test documentation, the last couple of years I have have to give more than a few engineers a smack about using the term weight, I point out they mean mass. Mass is an easily defined universal value, whereas weight has a number of variabilities. But then we are testing in the realms of milligrams not millions of tonnes.

Your accusation still has no merit though.

Do you smack the organizers of the Olympics about "weight" classes expressed in kilos? Do you smack people who give their weight in kilos?
What accusation? I just pointed out that Capel Dodger offered no climate-related data.

You claim expertise in the above. Okay, by how much will the ratio of the mass of atmospheric CO2 to the mass of annual CO2 emissions differ from the ratio of total atmospheric weight of CO2 to weight of CO2 emissions? If you had to guess...?
a=the ratio of the mass of atmospheric CO2 to the mass of annual CO2 emissions.
b=the ratio of total atmospheric weight of CO2 to weight of CO2 emissions.
(a-b)/a =___? Do you imagine that this is even one part in 1000?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So you admit to being a liar? Whats the point of the ellipsis about the term people at SkS? Are you making some vague point about them, expressing frustration, or what?

Was Sean Connery lying when he said: "My name is Bond. James Bond"? I illustrated an obvious point: citations look like support until you see what they say.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 0.

 

[spin0]

This whole discussion is outwith anything to do with global warming, but your statements are technically wrong; I am simply correcting them for the sake of the the "E" in JREF.

And what an E it has once again been.
Thanks jimbob, aleCcowaN (THE best teacher), Reality Check, Mikemcc, lomiller, CapelDodger, Corsair 115, a_unique_person, Acleron, Megalodon, Dancing David, BenBurch, uke2se, W.D.Clinger, Halsu and all of you others for the last few pages with the E that you provided. And thanks for mr. Malcolm Kirkpatrick for the special contribution too.

Anyway, some of Malcolm Kirkpatrick's rather peculiar writings reminded me of something related and I wanted to ask all you guys:
Is there or have you ever heard of a denialist who actually knows anythig at all about Venus' atmosphere and it's workings? Who actually has attempted to explain it's observed features? With the observed IR-windows and their opacities/transparencies in their heights and wavelengths and all? Has there ever been such a thing? Or even an attempt in the denialsphere?

 

[aleCcowaN]

But you don't, if you talk to anyone who isn't out to score debate points. The difference in gravity between the peak of Aconcogua, Malibu pier, and the shore of the Dead Sea is insignificant (we're rounding to one or two decimal points in scientific notation, (e.g., 5.3 x 10^18) remember). The difference rotation makes is the same as the difference between your weight at the North pole and at Quito, Equador or Conakry, Guinea.

Look, Ma, no insults!

Pitty that atmospheric CO2 is in the atmosphere and not on the surface. I already provided you with that "data" 75 posts ago. 5.3 x 10^18? Your mass of the atmosphere was quite off, I already told you more than a hundred posts ago. It's clear your "rounding" is just a mask for "you don't give a darn", and your selling argument that you are in important things just a cover for your dim approach, as the clear evidence of your result being wrong in two orders of magnitude and you not noticing shows, and as it is also shown by i you, once informed about it, not commenting or correcting your just written half-baked views based on your previous mistakes.

You didn't even manage to communicate your position about the subject of this thread, global warming, even after hundred of posts of yours during the last month or so. But you implied in some of those post that evolution is fast enough to bear with change. Funny, isn't it?

Look, Ma, no insults, just accurate descriptions![/quote]

 

[Reality Check]

a) They claimed "no evidence of coral bleaching until recent decades" and we both agree this is false.
b) The cite (Abram) does not support their claim. I can cite Bohr (1921) in support of anything, and if you don't look it up, won't I look erudite?

a) They claimed "no evidence of coral bleaching until recent decades" in the context of mass coral bleaching.
How global warming is driving mass coral bleaching

Looking only at bleaching though, we find that the incidence of mass coral bleaching increases dramatically in the last few decades. Despite modern records being biased by better monitoring and reporting in recent times, there seem to be little evidence of mass coral bleaching further back in time when examining long-lived coral communities. Studies from around the world show no signs of bleaching dating back many thousands of years, until recent decades (Abram 2003), (Aronson 2003). In the Caribbean there are no signs of previous mass bleaching dating back 220,000 years (Pandolfini & Jackson 2006)

(my emphasis added)
You are lying - we do not agree that this is false because I did not say that the article is false and you are quote mining the article which is true for the context of mass coral bleaching.


b) The citations do support their claim of mass coral bleaching in recent decades:

• (Abram, et al) Coral Reef Death During the 1997 Indian Ocean Dipole Linked to Indonesian Wildfires
  "Sea surface temperature reconstructions show that although some past upwelling events have been stronger, there were no analogous episodes of coral mortality during the past 7000 years, indicating that the 1997 red tide was highly unusual."
• (Aronson, et al) The 1998 bleaching event and its aftermath on a coral reef in Belize
  "Corals in all habitats along the Belizean barrier reef bleached as a result of elevated sea temperatures in the summer and fall of 1998, and in fore-reef habitats of the outer barrier reef and offshore platforms they showed signs of recovery in 1999. In contrast, coral populations on reefs in the central shelf lagoon died off catastrophically. Based on an analysis of reef cores, this was the first bleaching-induced mass coral mortality in the central lagoon in at least the last 3,000 years."

The above quotes from the cited abstracts also support their claim of "little evidence of mass coral bleaching further back in time when examining long-lived coral communities".

You could cite Bohr (1921) and look extremely ignorant. Bohr did not write on coral blanching or even climate science .

 

[Frank Newgent]

I used to dive quite a bit and it became obvious years ago that the Caribbean had become a bathtub. Nice not to need to wear a wetsuit come October I suppose.

Not the place to go should you wish to see color in the coral though.

 

[spin0]

b) The cite (Abram) does not support their claim. I can cite Bohr (1921) in support of anything, and if you don't look it up, won't I look erudite?

What's this all about then. Let's see.

The "claim" is as follows: "Looking only at bleaching though, we find that the incidence of mass coral bleaching increases dramatically in the last few decades. Despite modern records being biased by better monitoring and reporting in recent times, there seem to be little evidence of mass coral bleaching further back in time when examining long-lived coral communities. Studies from around the world show no signs of bleaching dating back many thousands of years, until recent decades (Abram 2003), (Aronson 2003). In the Caribbean there are no signs of previous mass bleaching dating back 220,000 years (Pandolfini & Jackson 2006) "

And mr. Malcolm Kirkpatrick claims that the cite (Abram) does not support that.

But the cite (Abrams) says even in the frekking abstract: "Sea surface temperature reconstructions show that although some past upwelling events have been stronger, there were no analogous episodes of coral mortality during the past 7000 years, indicating that the 1997 red tide was highly unusual."

According to the cite (Abrams) there has not been "analogous episodes" of coral mortality in past 7000 years. And the claim was that there has not been signs of such events for many thousands of years. To me 7000 corresponds to many thousands.

So the cite does indeed support the claim. It's just mr. Malcolm Kirkpatrick who doesn't. And Niels Bohr has nothing whatsoever to do with mr. Malcolm Kirkpatrick's personal views. No ****. What a surprise.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick: "won't I look erudite?"
Yeah, you do. Whatever it is.


ETA: NVM, RC was quicker.

 

[Corsair 115]

Because that consideration does not apply equally to both planets. Mercury gets to cool down on the night side.

Let's just get straight to the heart of the matter: What role, if any, do you think all the carbon dioxide in Venus' atmosphere plays in warming its surface temperature?

 

[jimbob]

...pound to kilogram conversions are still converting from and to pounds as units of mass, not pound-force. Conversion tables are fine doing that.

The term "pound force" is sometimes shortened to "pound"...

So it's correct to use a unit of force as a unit of mass? Again, here's the Engineering toolbox:
"w (lb) = m (slugs) g (ft/s2)".
The "pound" is a unit of force in the English system. The slug is the unit of mass in the English system. The kilo and igram are units of mass in the SI (International or metric) system. The newton and dyne are units of force in the SI system. That does not stop anyone from constructing conversion tables: kilos to pounds, because we understand we're talking about measurements we take at the Earth's surface. It does not stop anyone from expressing "weight" classes for boxers and wrestlers in kilos.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is acceptable to call the unit of mass equivalent to 454g (3sf) the "pound". It is also acceptable to call the unit of force that is equivalent to the weight of a pound under one gravity the "pound-force" or even the "pound".

However that doesn't mean that mass conversion tables between pounds and kilograms are incorrect because a pound is actually a unit of mass and is defined in terms of kilograms (national bureau of standards google book link link here, para 3

Engineering toolbox seems to be a bit parochial. In fact it looks as if it has some sloppy editing.

Being English, I would also disagree about the slug being the unit of mass in the "English" system, although to be fair I am not sure what the English system is. Britain used the imperial system, and now has mostly moved to the metric system. The IoP link I put up earlier also uses the pound as a unit of mass.

Anyway,

This whole discussion is outwith anything to do with global warming, but your statements are technically wrong; I am simply correcting them for the sake of the the "E" in JREF.

 

[BenBurch]

The correct unit of mass for English measurements is the slug, BTW

It is a mass that accelerates by 1 ft/s*s when a force of one pound-force is exerted on it.