|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 18, 2019 14:59:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 18, 2019 15:04:28 GMT
Yes the top 5 - 6 meters of the oceans has the same energy capacity as the entire atmosphere
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 19, 2019 12:04:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 19, 2019 13:12:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 22, 2019 11:46:56 GMT
" Scientists identify more regions of the world that haven’t warmed up – and have, instead, cooled – since the early 1900s.
Kutta and Hubbart, 2019 Observed climatic changes in West Virginia and opportunities for agriculture
“Between 1900 and 2016, climatic trends were characterized by significant reductions in the maximum temperatures (−0.78°C/century; p = 0.001), significant increases in minimum temperatures (0.44 °C/century; p = 0.017) [overall -0.34°C/century], and increased annual precipitation (25.4 mm/century) indicative of a wetter and more temperate WV climate. Despite increasing trends of growing degree days during the first (p ≤ 0.015) and second half of the period of record, the long-term trend indicated a decrease in GDD [warm growing degree days] of approximately 100 °C/days.”" notrickszone.com/2019/02/21/new-papers-find-significant-cooling-in-w-virginia-appalachia-and-the-yellow-sea-since-the-early-1900s/[ My Bolding] So the high temperatures have dropped and the minimum temperatures increased. Is this all a mathematical 'sleight of hand'? The climate 'scientist' approach is to take the mathematical mean of the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature and call that 'the average temperature' - which it definitely isn't. If the fall in the maximum temperatures is less than the rise in the minimum temperatures, then the arithmetic mean of the maximum and minimum will rise. The 'scientists' [cough] then say the temperatures are rising and project that forward to boilageddon. But what is actually happening is that top temperatures are reducing and there is less daily variance. I s it all a very simple scam? Surely it cannot be that simple?
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Feb 22, 2019 14:53:49 GMT
And if I'm correct this might not include the ice caps which have a mass of 28.5 million gigatons or 2.85E22g which gives a total heart capacity of 6E22 J/K but more importantly the heat of fusion is 9.5E24 J Additionally the global energy output is 5.67E20 joules per year enough to heat the atmosphere 0.11 degrees every year. This is mostly energy spent heating houses, emitting light which is a byproduct of heating systems basically, moving trains,cars and planes that deposite that heat almost entirely straight in the atmosphere through friction, etc. I wonder how large the lag time is in order to transfer that heat to the soil and oceans and whether the IPCC takes this into account. I'd guess not. Now according to the theory all sea level rise is due to melting sea ice and since 1980 the sea has supposedly risen 0.1m which equates to 36100 km^3, arctic and antarctic ice also melted a bit to make it around 40000 km^3 This would have needed a total energy of 1.34E22 J. According to the IPCC the radiation trapped due to anthropogenic effects is almost 2.5 W/m^2, lets say that on average in those 4 decades it was 2 W/m^2. 2*510000000000000*3600*24*365*40 = 1.2867E24 So while 1.34E22 J was used to melt the ice, the remaining 1.2733E24 would have been used to heat the oceans and atmosphere 0.227K. This does not match with the 0.8K that was registered worldwide. Where did the 0.575K came from? I am so confused...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 22, 2019 17:57:32 GMT
The mercury, now temperature probes, instability??? Or.......in other words, the Tooth Fairy???
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Feb 23, 2019 9:46:23 GMT
And if I'm correct this might not include the ice caps which have a mass of 28.5 million gigatons or 2.85E22g which gives a total heart capacity of 6E22 J/K but more importantly the heat of fusion is 9.5E24 J Additionally the global energy output is 5.67E20 joules per year enough to heat the atmosphere 0.11 degrees every year. This is mostly energy spent heating houses, emitting light which is a byproduct of heating systems basically, moving trains,cars and planes that deposite that heat almost entirely straight in the atmosphere through friction, etc. I wonder how large the lag time is in order to transfer that heat to the soil and oceans and whether the IPCC takes this into account. I'd guess not. Now according to the theory all sea level rise is due to melting sea ice and since 1980 the sea has supposedly risen 0.1m which equates to 36100 km^3, arctic and antarctic ice also melted a bit to make it around 40000 km^3 This would have needed a total energy of 1.34E22 J. According to the IPCC the radiation trapped due to anthropogenic effects is almost 2.5 W/m^2, lets say that on average in those 4 decades it was 2 W/m^2. 2*510000000000000*3600*24*365*40 = 1.2867E24 So while 1.34E22 J was used to melt the ice, the remaining 1.2733E24 would have been used to heat the oceans and atmosphere 0.227K. This does not match with the 0.8K that was registered worldwide. Where did the 0.575K came from? I am so confused... After thinking of it this is not an airtight argument. It does not take feedback mechanisms into account and the oceans can experience a temporary lag in temperature. The latter would just mean that the current atmospheric warming is exagerrated though and will decelerate once the oceans start to pick up with it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 23, 2019 13:47:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 23, 2019 13:57:48 GMT
And if I'm correct this might not include the ice caps which have a mass of 28.5 million gigatons or 2.85E22g which gives a total heart capacity of 6E22 J/K but more importantly the heat of fusion is 9.5E24 J Additionally the global energy output is 5.67E20 joules per year enough to heat the atmosphere 0.11 degrees every year. This is mostly energy spent heating houses, emitting light which is a byproduct of heating systems basically, moving trains,cars and planes that deposite that heat almost entirely straight in the atmosphere through friction, etc. I wonder how large the lag time is in order to transfer that heat to the soil and oceans and whether the IPCC takes this into account. I'd guess not. Now according to the theory all sea level rise is due to melting sea ice and since 1980 the sea has supposedly risen 0.1m which equates to 36100 km^3, arctic and antarctic ice also melted a bit to make it around 40000 km^3 This would have needed a total energy of 1.34E22 J. According to the IPCC the radiation trapped due to anthropogenic effects is almost 2.5 W/m^2, lets say that on average in those 4 decades it was 2 W/m^2. 2*510000000000000*3600*24*365*40 = 1.2867E24 So while 1.34E22 J was used to melt the ice, the remaining 1.2733E24 would have been used to heat the oceans and atmosphere 0.227K. This does not match with the 0.8K that was registered worldwide. Where did the 0.575K came from? I am so confused... After thinking of it this is not an airtight argument. It does not take feedback mechanisms into account and the oceans can experience a temporary lag in temperature. The latter would just mean that the current atmospheric warming is exagerrated though and will decelerate once the oceans start to pick up with it. Yes and no. The single most important variable is clouds. At present, they can't be modeled with any degree of certainty.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Feb 23, 2019 15:23:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 23, 2019 15:36:07 GMT
" Scientists identify more regions of the world that haven’t warmed up – and have, instead, cooled – since the early 1900s.
Kutta and Hubbart, 2019 Observed climatic changes in West Virginia and opportunities for agriculture
“Between 1900 and 2016, climatic trends were characterized by significant reductions in the maximum temperatures (−0.78°C/century; p = 0.001), significant increases in minimum temperatures (0.44 °C/century; p = 0.017) [overall -0.34°C/century], and increased annual precipitation (25.4 mm/century) indicative of a wetter and more temperate WV climate. Despite increasing trends of growing degree days during the first (p ≤ 0.015) and second half of the period of record, the long-term trend indicated a decrease in GDD [warm growing degree days] of approximately 100 °C/days.”" notrickszone.com/2019/02/21/new-papers-find-significant-cooling-in-w-virginia-appalachia-and-the-yellow-sea-since-the-early-1900s/[ My Bolding] So the high temperatures have dropped and the minimum temperatures increased. Is this all a mathematical 'sleight of hand'? The climate 'scientist' approach is to take the mathematical mean of the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature and call that 'the average temperature' - which it definitely isn't. If the fall in the maximum temperatures is less than the rise in the minimum temperatures, then the arithmetic mean of the maximum and minimum will rise. The 'scientists' [cough] then say the temperatures are rising and project that forward to boilageddon. But what is actually happening is that top temperatures are reducing and there is less daily variance. I s it all a very simple scam? Surely it cannot be that simple? But it isn't that simple. You are describing the greenhouse gas effect we still don't know what causes multi-decadal changes and longer termed ones that appear to be on a thousand year scale that created the LIA and its recovery. I have a link to the UC Berkeley Best temperature reconstruction that breaks down trends in daily minimums and daily maximums (but can't find the link right now). The data shows that daily minimums are increasing a much greater rate than daily maximums with minimum increases providing twice the trend than warming increases. Of course the Best temperature reconstruction rests upon already manipulated data sets, data sets adjusted significantly as worry bead rubbers searched for errors in the temperature record that could explain why warming isn't proceeding as rapidly as the average of model runs. So another explanation for why minimums are increasing at twice the rate of maximums is one of the easiest adjustments to make are lowering night time low temperatures on the assumption that the coldest part of the night was in the record at a time different than the "ideal" time to take a night time measurement assuming the station manager worked like a socialist and only looked at the thermometer one time during the night.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 25, 2019 3:11:28 GMT
We can always homogenize and infill..... and of course the result is accurate to 3 places of decimals - we are climate 'scientists'
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 26, 2019 13:30:13 GMT
www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/Yes the latest from climate 'scientists' is that if you heat a water planet by addition of sufficient quantities of the magic molecule CO 2 the water will stop evaporating and forming clouds! And everything will fry due to the lowered albedo just like it did previous times when CO 2 was ten times what it is n....... oh wait... I must admit I have seen some extreme CumuloNimbus I have yet to see one broken up by heat.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 27, 2019 11:28:55 GMT
" German ‘Bundestag Environment Committee’ CO2 Reduction Policy Is “Mad” Climate Scientist Prof. Horst Lüdecke Tells German ‘Bundestag Environment Committee’ CO2 Reduction Policy Is “Mad”
While all other experts welcomed the prescribed reduction of emissions by 30% by 2030 or described it as a little too difficult, Lüdecke requested that we first check if CO2 would really have this effect that the IPCC has been claiming for decades and doing so without providing a trace of evidence. As to William von Ockham (Ockham’s razor or law of parsimony), the simplest explanations should also be sought in natural sciences. And experience has shown that these are almost always the right explanations. Changes of last 150 years within natural variability Applied to the temperature increase of the last 150 years, this means first comparing these changes to earlier natural variations of the climate. If one does this, one finds that the changes of the last 150 years are exactly within the natural variations of the climate. An additional CO2 effect is not needed."notrickszone.com/2019/02/26/climate-scientist-prof-horst-ludecke-tells-german-bundestag-environment-committee-co2-reduction-policy-is-mad/
|
|