The climate always changes

Kafka said:
Actually that's not true. I spent a year as an oceanographic chemical technician and I can say that oceanography is not really simple.

One of the things we were working on was tracking deep ocean currents.
Click to expand...
What didn't you understand???
 
Bigdog said:
What didn't you understand???
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, well I wasn't actually trained as an oceanographer so I was mainly there to run the gas chromatograph. But the topics I think I found most confusing were things like the Revelle Factor. I mean, I can sort of understand its application, but its derivation and what it actually is doing is still a bit of a struggle for me. I also found that the complexity of various relationships between density, temperature, salinity to kind of be overwhelming since they are quite complex and ultimately drive a lot of the currents in the ocean.

I never fully understood what the guy doing the 4He stuff was doing.

One project I was on was using a tracer to assess gas exchange in an estuary. I was responsible for collecting the samples and running the GC again to test for the tracers we were looking at which was pretty straightforward....but the modeling the grad student who was running the project did was waaay out of my comfort zone.

Don't get me wrong: I learned a LOT during that year but really oceanography is NOT simple. Especially for people like you and I who are not oceanographers.
 
Kafka said:
Hmmmm, well I wasn't actually trained as an oceanographer so I was mainly there to run the gas chromatograph. But the topics I think I found most confusing were things like the Revelle Factor. I mean, I can sort of understand its application, but its derivation and what it actually is doing is still a bit of a struggle for me. I also found that the complexity of various relationships between density, temperature, salinity to kind of be overwhelming since they are quite complex and ultimately drive a lot of the currents in the ocean.

I never fully understood what the guy doing the 4He stuff was doing.

One project I was on was using a tracer to assess gas exchange in an estuary. I was responsible for collecting the samples and running the GC again to test for the tracers we were looking at which was pretty straightforward....but the modeling the grad student who was running the project did was waaay out of my comfort zone.

Don't get me wrong: I learned a LOT during that year but really oceanography is NOT simple. Especially for people like you and I who are not oceanographers.
Click to expand...
I don't find it difficult. Often it's just a matter of plugging values into formulas.

It's not like YOU are inventing the formula. :dunno:
 
Kafka said:
Not what I said, not even remotely like what I said. I see you are not going to be able to discuss the topic. Sorry I responded.



All this blather about "history". YES, the earth's climate has changed. Do you know how we know that? It's called paleoclimatology. And it's how we know how the NATURAL forcings can cause warming and cooling. And we better understand the natural forcings. But right now the natural forcings are NOT lining up with the temperature increase. So something else is afoot.

When you factor in human activities you find that the data makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
We can't even predict glaciation cycles.

vostok3.jpg
 
Bigdog said:
We can't even predict glaciation cycles.

vostok3.jpg
Click to expand...

Why did you post a pretty clear indication of cyclicity with a reasonably clear cycle time to suggest we can't predict glacial advances?

Actually we are supposed to be going into another glacial advance...we are currently in an interglacial. But the temperatures are going in the WRONG direction. Should be an indicator of something key.

And, of course, that is the very real possibility that our activities have overcome the negative forcing due to earth's orbital obliquity. Weird how science lines up isn't it?
 
Kafka said:
Yeah, unfortunatley I'm a scientist so it usually isn't just enough to "plug and chug".



And forgive me if I assume you are just playing here. You don't know the science. You're bluffing.
Click to expand...
What else do you have to do besides plug and chug ... then analyze the results?
 
Kafka said:
Why did you post a pretty clear indication of cyclicity with a reasonably clear cycle time to suggest we can't predict glacial advances?

Actually we are supposed to be going into another glacial advance...we are currently in an interglacial. But the temperatures are going in the WRONG direction. Should be an indicator of something key.

And, of course, that is the very real possibility that our activities have overcome the negative forcing due to earth's orbital obliquity. Weird how science lines up isn't it?
Click to expand...
No, nothing lines up. Nothing predicted such a long interglacial. And orbital obliquity does not predict glaciation cycles.
 
Bigdog said:
As I expected, you would evade the question. Is that what you think scientists do ... evade questions?
Click to expand...

LOL.

I think the thing I find most fascinating about these gambits (you trying to pass as a scientist on this discussion) are so boring. For anyone with an actual degree it's 100% OBVIOUS you have almost no scientific training. The saddest part is that you THINK you are able to fake your way through this conversation.

Trust me. You can't. You aren't.

Thanks for playing though. You are starting to bore the shit out of me.
 
Kafka said:
LOL.

I think the thing I find most fascinating about these gambits (you trying to pass as a scientist on this discussion) are so boring. For anyone with an actual degree it's 100% OBVIOUS you have almost no scientific training. The saddest part is that you THINK you are able to fake your way through this conversation.

Trust me. You can't. You aren't.

Thanks for playing though. You are starting to bore the shit out of me.
Click to expand...
Word salad :palm:

You don't know what you're talking about so you run away.
 
Kafka said:
LOL.

(You and I both know the truth....and there aren't any outside viewers so why bother with the facade?)
Click to expand...
I know the truth. I know why you are unable to prove me wrong. Now, go away, little one.

I know you need the time to google it.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
If sea levels rise and storms increase in magnitude as claimed, it will destroy much of the oil companies coastal and ocean infrastructure, i.e. refineries and ocean rigs.

None of this negates the fact that the deep ocean is poorly understood or that NASA can not measure the impact of something as basic as clouds.
Click to expand...
It's not even possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point.
Remember the land moves just as the water does.

But you do make a valid point:

* Oil rigs are still there and they still operate.
* Runways built on little more than sand bars during WW2 are still there.
* Elliot Bay in Seattle is still the same as it has been for decades.
* Miami is still there, and the cruise ships still use the same ports.
 
Bigdog said:
So the Chinese have no clue about CO2, and neither does India. Got it :thup:
Click to expand...
They do, and so what?
Bigdog said:
Let me know when the white lib elite set an example and stop using air travel, buying goods delivered by trucks or goods from foreign countries with lax environmental laws, using dirty electricity, and stop eating meat and using cement. When they stop, I'll know it's real.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. They want every ELSE to suffer, but not The Elite. Never The Elite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top