|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 7, 2016 13:00:46 GMT
How about a third one from just a few years later in 1895. However this one was not in New York City or North Dakota where they are know to get a few blizzards on occasion. This one was in Houston, TX a few miles south. It must have been a really rough series of winters.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2016 14:21:26 GMT
Glen: Had to be AGW behind the miserable weather!
Can you imagine the teeth grinding if we get this crap again???
As I have stated numerous times, warmth is our friend. Cold is miserable!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 7, 2016 16:51:15 GMT
I have no idea whats going to happen. Seems to be a tiny little bit of historical pattern of there being 3 diminishing solar cycles, if you want to call it happening twice, once every hundred years a pattern. Really weak observation support for a pattern if it is one at all. And who can predict solar cycles? NOAA finally got on board with a reasonably accurate forecast of Solarcycle 24 pretty much though not until it started. They would like to forget earlier predictions. . . .like the ones they did about now in Cycle 23. The science pundits are out with predictions for a cycle at least as strong as 24 and perhaps stronger. Which if so would represent a small break with the previous two times, the Dalton Minimum and the early late 19th and early 20th century minimums where the third cycle in the series was the smallest. Also in playing with the numbers and matching solar activity to temperature change it seems that the solar cycle exerts strong forces on the climate. It seems in some way to influence ENSO with strong minimums appearing to favor La Nina development and strong El Ninos appear to favor just after the minimum La Nina and around the solar max. But the data sets for ENSO are probably slanted toward the positive PDO perhaps simply because of how long its been monitored and how much of the old stuff was modeled instead of observed. Then if you actually like patterns for predictions, the pattern would suggest still 100 to 200 years more of solar grand maximum activity with the current pause simply a hiccup. I guess we will see. Astromet is out there with his decades of cooling, NOAA with its decades of warming. At least we should find out who was right even if somebody winning still doesn't tell us what the heck is happening or what will happen. As Akasofu and Curry keep pressing on learning more about natural variation. If it warms we will still not know why, if it cools we will still not know if natural variation simply overrode anthropogenic or by how much. The only people who will be sure about those answers are the politically inclined. Well, I've out-forecasted NOAA and many other climate centers Icefisher and my forecasts are not guesswork. I've been forecasting the arrival of global cooling in 2017 for well over a decade now and nothing has changed. Waiting for someone to be 'right' also is not a plan, as astronomic forecasting based on the Sun and the planets isn't guesswork, but very much a proven science. Patterns do not 'predict' though, but again, the Sun is going to enter a quiescent phase, and the science is proven that it is the Sun that governs the Earth's climate. We've already addressed the ENSO problem, as NOAA has *never* forecasted one in advance. I have and continue to state that ENSO is a decadal climate event. The next El Nino will be in 2019, followed by a powerful La Nina that will take place under the new climate regime of global cooling. Lastly, there is no such thing as 'anthropogenic global warming,' so natural variations cannot override something that simply does not exist. I am aware that your forecasting isn't guesswork Astro. However, as far as being a science its rather short on the documentation, though I can agree some of the documentation does rise to and sometimes exceeds the level of what has been statistically passed off as science in todays world. To me statistics is not science. It can approach science in simple homogenous-like systems but that pretty clearly does not apply to our world's climate or actually a lot more. I disagree with the conclusion that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. I think that AGW sits rather squarely scientifically as a possibility. One has to account for what is well established as a greenhouse effect (despite its misnaming) and in the process of accounting for that one has to allow for the possibility of variation. Your science is about variation and one variation does not rule out another variation. Its important to note that science is well established that the greenhouse effect is internal to the planet and while it might be influenced by variation of the stars, the stars are not responsible for it. Once you accept that then you have to accept the possibility of that internal mechanism being variable. However, as I see it. . . .heat is an amazing thing and you cannot stop its migration but you can slow it, gather it, and temporarily sequester it. Heat also has more than one mode of travel, in the terms of modern science, though its greatest scientists held out to death the idea that its all one method, one set of equations, one set of equations in conflict with modern science. Einstein believed fervently that his inventions were merely good approximations for the times like what he proved Newtonian physics was and his greatest disappoint was he was never able to discover them. I agree with Einstein on this. . . .I am a person, like you, that sees incredible forces in what many discount as too small. Thats the nature of equilibrium, the smallest of forces may move very slowly, so slow as to not be perceived but can amount to great mountains over time. I have learned that throughout my professional career. Quite simply it may not be a matter of either/or but instead it may be and likely is both. I am torn between a thermodynamic process for the internally generated greenhouse effect and a gas pressure law effect. Here it is almost certainly both too. I believe you can very clearly vary the greenhouse effect by either adding sufficient atmosphere gases at a rate far beyond what man has demonstrated he can do so far, like in increasing the gases in the atmosphere by more than 1%. Other ways man could affect surface temperatures are by affecting its emissivity (something not demonstrated), or possibly by affecting its reflectivity or transparency (something within the realm of possibility). I believe that UHI is real but its importance is not in how it has varied climate temperature but instead on how it has varied the way we measure it (and thus the extrapolations from those measurements). As you drive around on an especially hot day you can find up to a 10 degree temperature difference as you drive through an area of mature tree growth into grasslands. Deforestation has occurred primarily near urban development.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 7, 2016 17:10:14 GMT
Well, I've out-forecasted NOAA and many other climate centers Icefisher and my forecasts are not guesswork. I've been forecasting the arrival of global cooling in 2017 for well over a decade now and nothing has changed. Waiting for someone to be 'right' also is not a plan, as astronomic forecasting based on the Sun and the planets isn't guesswork, but very much a proven science. Patterns do not 'predict' though, but again, the Sun is going to enter a quiescent phase, and the science is proven that it is the Sun that governs the Earth's climate. We've already addressed the ENSO problem, as NOAA has *never* forecasted one in advance. I have and continue to state that ENSO is a decadal climate event. The next El Nino will be in 2019, followed by a powerful La Nina that will take place under the new climate regime of global cooling. Lastly, there is no such thing as 'anthropogenic global warming,' so natural variations cannot override something that simply does not exist. I am aware that your forecasting isn't guesswork Astro. However, as far as being a science its rather short on the documentation, though I can agree some of the documentation does rise to and sometimes exceeds the level of what has been statistically passed off as science in todays world. To me statistics is not science. It can approach science in simple homogenous-like systems but that pretty clearly does not apply to our world's climate or actually a lot more. I disagree with the conclusion that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. I think that AGW sits rather squarely scientifically as a possibility. One has to account for what is well established as a greenhouse effect (despite its misnaming) and in the process of accounting for that one has to allow for the possibility of variation. Your science is about variation and one variation does not rule out another variation. Its important to note that science is well established that the greenhouse effect is internal to the planet and while it might be influenced by variation of the stars, the stars are not responsible for it. Once you accept that then you have to accept the possibility of that internal mechanism being variable. However, as I see it. . . .heat is an amazing thing and you cannot stop its migration but you can slow it, gather it, and temporarily sequester it. Heat also has more than one mode of travel, in the terms of modern science, though its greatest scientists held out to death the idea that its all one method, one set of equations, one set of equations in conflict with modern science. Einstein believed fervently that his inventions were merely good approximations for the times like what he proved Newtonian physics was and his greatest disappoint was he was never able to discover them. I agree with Einstein on this. . . .I am a person, like you, that sees incredible forces in what many discount as too small. Thats the nature of equilibrium, the smallest of forces may move very slowly, so slow as to not be perceived but can amount to great mountains over time. I have learned that throughout my professional career. Quite simply it may not be a matter of either/or but instead it may be and likely is both. I am torn between a thermodynamic process for the internally generated greenhouse effect and a gas pressure law effect. Here it is almost certainly both too. I believe you can very clearly vary the greenhouse effect by either adding sufficient atmosphere gases at a rate far beyond what man has demonstrated he can do so far, like in increasing the gases in the atmosphere by more than 1%. Other ways man could affect surface temperatures are by affecting its emissivity (something not demonstrated), or possibly by affecting its reflectivity or transparency (something within the realm of possibility). I believe that UHI is real but its importance is not in how it has varied climate temperature but instead on how it has varied the way we measure it (and thus the extrapolations from those measurements). As you drive around on an especially hot day you can find up to a 10 degree temperature difference as you drive through an area of mature tree growth into grasslands. Deforestation has occurred primarily near urban development. There's plenty of 'documentation' in astronomic forecasting Icefisher. Also, there is no reason to be torn between a thermodynamic process for the internally generated greenhouse effect and a gas pressure law effect because there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. The science on this is clear and has been for many decades. The fact that it has come up again and used as propaganda is a testament to why NOAA and other climate centers cannot forecast ENSO, much less seasonal weather in advance. They are far behind based on their own ideology. Effects on this planet is not a 'cause,' and that is why there is all this nickel-and-diming on the Earth's climate being seen in pieces, but not its whole as a variable climate system that is impacted by the Sun, Moon and planets in space, as well as by the electromagnetics of it all. The Earth's greenhouse is water vapor. There is nothing 'mysterious' about that as the Earth is a 'water planet,' so yes, the greenhouse effect of water vapor is internal to the planet. As for how the bodies of water is influenced by the Sun, Moon and planets, all you need to understand is that the tidal forces are forced by outer space. The Earth lives in space. Looking for an 'internal mechanism' is a total waste of time. It is what it is. The Earth is not a 'stand-alone' planet, but is part of the solar system. Those searching for mechanisms that reject this fact will search endlessly and will never find. There is no internal mechanism being variable, as the Earth's entire climate system is variable because we have a star called the Sun that is a variable star. You cannot replicate the Earth's climate in a laboratory. Those who have tried (and continue to try) have and are terribly disappointed with their computer models. I just posted on what is coming for agriculture here ->> solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2624/farming-weather-global-cooling-2017
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 7, 2016 23:38:00 GMT
There's plenty of 'documentation' in astronomic forecasting Icefisher. Also, there is no reason to be torn between a thermodynamic process for the internally generated greenhouse effect and a gas pressure law effect because there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. The science on this is clear and has been for many decades. The fact that it has come up again and used as propaganda is a testament to why NOAA and other climate centers cannot forecast ENSO, much less seasonal weather in advance. They are far behind based on their own ideology. Effects on this planet is not a 'cause,' and that is why there is all this nickel-and-diming on the Earth's climate being seen in pieces, but not its whole as a variable climate system that is impacted by the Sun, Moon and planets in space, as well as by the electromagnetics of it all. The Earth's greenhouse is water vapor. There is nothing 'mysterious' about that as the Earth is a 'water planet,' so yes, the greenhouse effect of water vapor is internal to the planet. As for how the bodies of water is influenced by the Sun, Moon and planets, all you need to understand is that the tidal forces are forced by outer space. The Earth lives in space. Looking for an 'internal mechanism' is a total waste of time. It is what it is. The Earth is not a 'stand-alone' planet, but is part of the solar system. Those searching for mechanisms that reject this fact will search endlessly and will never find. There is no internal mechanism being variable, as the Earth's entire climate system is variable because we have a star called the Sun that is a variable star. You cannot replicate the Earth's climate in a laboratory. Those who have tried (and continue to try) have and are terribly disappointed with their computer models. I just posted on what is coming for agriculture here ->> solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2624/farming-weather-global-cooling-2017I understand there is a lot of documentation, but of a rather weak statistical nature. That certainly is not a denial of an astrological effect but it falls short of true science. However, much of what passes as climate science is of the same nature. The thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect are solid as a theoretical basis but have not been accurately quantified for our atmosphere, thus you might be partly right in the sense there is no significant anthropogenic greenhouse effect. But you are correct the thermodynamics are internal and does not explain the cause, which clearly is at least primarily an interaction between the water and gases on the planet and the sun. I am pretty much in agreement with you on the "variability" side of the equation that any anthropogenic greenhouse effect is insignificant and as such is likely not worthy of consideration for forecasting weather or climate. The only thing I disagree with you on is your level of certainty of knowing and understanding all the causes. As has been discussed around here a lot there is most likely more than one cause for variability. One is clearly anthropogenic and the only argument against it I see is that it is too small to be of consideration, but impossible its not. Your forecasts of ENSO and temperature is almost wholly non-quantified. You claim success on qualitative terms rather than quantified terms. For you to be right in your forecasts only implies that astrological variation exists but without precise quantification one has no science claim to exclusivity.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 7, 2016 23:42:18 GMT
I'm surprised when I read that someone who understands science doesn't believe that CO2 warms the earth to some degree. Which of the following don't you believe?
1) The existence of photons 2) That molecules absorb photons 3) That molecules emit photons 4) That CO2 absorbs and emits photons
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 8, 2016 0:31:39 GMT
There's plenty of 'documentation' in astronomic forecasting Icefisher. Also, there is no reason to be torn between a thermodynamic process for the internally generated greenhouse effect and a gas pressure law effect because there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. The science on this is clear and has been for many decades. The fact that it has come up again and used as propaganda is a testament to why NOAA and other climate centers cannot forecast ENSO, much less seasonal weather in advance. They are far behind based on their own ideology. Effects on this planet is not a 'cause,' and that is why there is all this nickel-and-diming on the Earth's climate being seen in pieces, but not its whole as a variable climate system that is impacted by the Sun, Moon and planets in space, as well as by the electromagnetics of it all. The Earth's greenhouse is water vapor. There is nothing 'mysterious' about that as the Earth is a 'water planet,' so yes, the greenhouse effect of water vapor is internal to the planet. As for how the bodies of water is influenced by the Sun, Moon and planets, all you need to understand is that the tidal forces are forced by outer space. The Earth lives in space. Looking for an 'internal mechanism' is a total waste of time. It is what it is. The Earth is not a 'stand-alone' planet, but is part of the solar system. Those searching for mechanisms that reject this fact will search endlessly and will never find. There is no internal mechanism being variable, as the Earth's entire climate system is variable because we have a star called the Sun that is a variable star. You cannot replicate the Earth's climate in a laboratory. Those who have tried (and continue to try) have and are terribly disappointed with their computer models. I just posted on what is coming for agriculture here ->> solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2624/farming-weather-global-cooling-2017I understand there is a lot of documentation, but of a rather weak statistical nature. That certainly is not a denial of an astrological effect but it falls short of true science. However, much of what passes as climate science is of the same nature. The thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect are solid as a theoretical basis but have not been accurately quantified for our atmosphere, thus you might be partly right in the sense there is no significant anthropogenic greenhouse effect. But you are correct the thermodynamics are internal and does not explain the cause, which clearly is at least primarily an interaction between the water and gases on the planet and the sun. I am pretty much in agreement with you on the "variability" side of the equation that any anthropogenic greenhouse effect is insignificant and as such is likely not worthy of consideration for forecasting weather or climate. The only thing I disagree with you on is your level of certainty of knowing and understanding all the causes. As has been discussed around here a lot there is most likely more than one cause for variability. One is clearly anthropogenic and the only argument against it I see is that it is too small to be of consideration, but impossible its not. Your forecasts of ENSO and temperature is almost wholly non-quantified. You claim success on qualitative terms rather than quantified terms. For you to be right in your forecasts only implies that astrological variation exists but without precise quantification one has no science claim to exclusivity. My 'certainty' comes from the fact that I put in the hard work and effort it takes to get there Icefisher. One cannot forecast without first doing just that, and it comes from experience and knowledge. It is okay for human beings to do that you know. I don't know what you mean when you use the word 'non-quantified' as the entire point of Science is the ability to predict. That's it. You know, even you could forecast as I do if you gave up these 'qualitative' and 'non-quantified' terms, which amounts to a kind of ideology that rejects that which it does not know. When I teach students how to forecast, one of the first things that has to be done is to the clear out much of the bunk in the mind that blocks their ability to learn how to forecast in the first place. As for the 'thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect,' these laws have been well-established and I remind you that the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are still very much in operation. The problem for those who cannot forecast is that 'they' are in their own way. They block themselves by reducing the 'mechanics' of how things function by defining them only within the limitations of their own box. I have explained, and in great detail over the years, how I forecast by astronomic means. The only way that you will understand it is to learn it yourself, but going on about rather conventional 'qualitative' and 'non-quantified' terms is not going to get you any closer, that's for sure. You have got to step outside your box, and extend this to outer space, because that is where you will find the causes of all climate change and the weather we have here on Earth, which, I remind you, is our planet, which 'lives' in space.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Sept 8, 2016 3:12:54 GMT
Astrosputin =
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 8, 2016 4:04:37 GMT
I'm surprised when I read that someone who understands science doesn't believe that CO2 warms the earth to some degree. Which of the following don't you believe? 1) The existence of photons 2) That molecules absorb photons 3) That molecules emit photons 4) That CO2 absorbs and emits photons For one, CO2 is not like a sheet of plastic holding in heat. It is also one of the heaviest gas molecules in the atmosphere as CO2 stays low. It hugs the surface which also allows plants to photosynthesize. Now, have you ever heard of plants that thrive in Earth's upper atmosphere? According to 'man-made global warming,' one of the many issues that false doctrine pushes is how CO2 gets into the higher atmosphere, creating a classic 'greenhouse effect,' this, while at the same time this very heavy gas rises? I'd love to see the mechanism which allows CO2 gas to be wholly collected high up in the atmosphere and low as a carbon sink on the surface of the planet at the same time. The fact is that CO2 can only absorb about eight percent of radiation frequencies available and is only about 1% of the heat that leaves the Earth as radiation. The other 99% is conduction, convection and evaporation. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. Any more CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and that isn't much. Even night vision equipment shows there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 8, 2016 14:25:17 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. NO question about that. Does it control all temperatures on earth?
An emphatic NO!
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 8, 2016 17:27:45 GMT
I'm surprised when I read that someone who understands science doesn't believe that CO2 warms the earth to some degree. Which of the following don't you believe? 1) The existence of photons 2) That molecules absorb photons 3) That molecules emit photons 4) That CO2 absorbs and emits photons For one, CO2 is not like a sheet of plastic holding in heat. It is also one of the heaviest gas molecules in the atmosphere as CO2 stays low. It hugs the surface which also allows plants to photosynthesize. Now, have you ever heard of plants that thrive in Earth's upper atmosphere? According to 'man-made global warming,' one of the many issues that false doctrine pushes is how CO2 gets into the higher atmosphere, creating a classic 'greenhouse effect,' this, while at the same time this very heavy gas rises? I'd love to see the mechanism which allows CO2 gas to be wholly collected high up in the atmosphere and low as a carbon sink on the surface of the planet at the same time. The fact is that CO2 can only absorb about eight percent of radiation frequencies available and is only about 1% of the heat that leaves the Earth as radiation. The other 99% is conduction, convection and evaporation. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. Any more CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and that isn't much. Even night vision equipment shows there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter. Astro, from what you've written I conclude that you accept the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits photons which leads to some warming. Your issue is how much. I don't have the time to enter into a debate but I'll just comment on these 2 paragraphs.... "It (CO2) is also one of the heaviest gas molecules in the atmosphere as CO2 stays low. It hugs the surface....... According to 'man-made global warming,' one of the many issues that false doctrine pushes is how CO2 gets into the higher atmosphere, creating a classic 'greenhouse effect,' this, while at the same time this very heavy gas rises?" The physics principle which drives the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere is entropy. Gases of various molecular weight have a more favorable entropy when mixed versus in a stratified state. That's why CO2 is evenly spread throughout the atmosphere as a percentage of the total gas by volume. There are some small differences (5%?) due to equilibration not yet being reached. For example, CO2 emissions at the earth's surface take a while to work their way to the top of the atmosphere. The number of CO2 molecules per unit of volume does go down with altitude as the air becomes thinner. But it is the same for all components of air regardless of their molecular weight. So this doesn't argue against the fact that more CO2 photon absorption occurs lower in the atmosphere, but CO2 molecular weight doesn't limit it to low altitudes.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 8, 2016 17:34:52 GMT
I'm surprised when I read that someone who understands science doesn't believe that CO2 warms the earth to some degree. Which of the following don't you believe? 1) The existence of photons 2) That molecules absorb photons 3) That molecules emit photons 4) That CO2 absorbs and emits photons But it goes further than that. The claim is that the absorbance and emission of photons actually warms the atmosphere in a way that 'traps heat'. That remains to be proven. Remember all of Arrhenius' experiments were in a closed tube. In actuality what happens when air is warmed even slightly is that it rises, the convection carries the warmer air upward and due to the lapse rate it cools (Avogadro and Charles' law) there is no heating effect at the level of absorption. All that happens is the atmospheric mixing increases. Infra red that is scattered (absorbed then re-emitted) by CO2 that reaches the surface has a 70% or higher chance of hitting water molecules either in the air or on the surface. The IR penetrates microns or less and initiates evaporation taking latent heat of evaporation from the water surface - thus cooling the surface. Air that contains water vapor is lighter than dry air (O2 and N2 are heavier than H2O) so will convect upward even if at the same or slightly cooler temperature as the ambient air. Drier air is then pulled in to replace the convecting moist air and there is now a breeze across the surface increasing evaporative cooling (just like blowing on a cup of hot coffee). So - air that is increased in temperature convects upward and cools 70% of the surface is cooled by IR if any reaches the surface. Convince me that there is actually a greenhouse effect. Convection overwhelms any warming. When you try to prove it do NOT use temperature - the CO2 is not trapping temperature, it is trapping energy. So use the metric kilojoules per kilogram of atmosphere that will account for enthalpy of the moist lapse rate. I remain to be convinced that there is such a thing as a 'green house effect'. The vents are open and there is no green house. Convection is triggered immediately there is any warming and overwhelms any effect. This is without effects of Albedo from clouds (the earth's iris 'Lindzen' and Willis Eischenbach's similar theories) OK - So I've been to Missouri and it's rubbed off
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 8, 2016 17:39:44 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. NO question about that. Does it control all temperatures on earth? An emphatic NO! Sigurdur, we're on the same wavelength.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 8, 2016 22:16:40 GMT
I'm surprised when I read that someone who understands science doesn't believe that CO2 warms the earth to some degree. Which of the following don't you believe? 1) The existence of photons 2) That molecules absorb photons 3) That molecules emit photons 4) That CO2 absorbs and emits photon OK - So I've been to Missouri and it's rubbed off Perdon??
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 9, 2016 12:05:29 GMT
|
|