|
Post by Andrew on Sept 9, 2016 15:59:49 GMT
Weather in Finland has definitely been quite a bit colder this summer, we have had no major dramas cooling the house down at night like in the last 4 years. So it will be interesting to see if the earlier record breaking period is finally over. Hard to believe it can get so hot up here in the supposedly frozen North. Not been very cold in winter for a few years either. Plenty of snow though.
Meanwhile I have not been following the climate or financial stuff at all and it seems the world is still going around ok without my worries.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 9, 2016 17:37:37 GMT
Hi Andrew, yep all still coasting along with plenty of speculation as to the final destination!! 😆
Thx for adding your weather info. ..it's always good to hear actual experiences rather then just figures.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 10, 2016 12:51:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 10, 2016 14:23:16 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 Nautonnier, I’m not going to try to convince you that CO2 has a greenhouse effect since that is a misnomer. Nor am I going to try to convince you that it “traps heat”. I am going to try to convince you that CO2 causes the earth to warm and since temperature is the way of measuring warmth I’ll need to use the word temperature. The sun continually bombards the earth with photons at a fairly steady rate. These photons are little packets of energy. 30-35% of the incoming photons are reflected back into space (albedo) and the rest are absorbed. The earth also emits photons and the higher its temperature, the more photon energy it emits. The normal state is one in which the earth emits an amount of photon energy over the year equal to that received from the sun. As a result, the earth’s average surface temperature stays almost constant from year to year. If the sun were to increase its photon rate to the earth, the earth’s temperatures would increase by an amount which causes its photon emissions to increase enough to offset the increased energy from the sun. If a large mirror were placed near the earth, perpendicular to the direction of the sun, which reflected photons emitted by the earth back to the earth, the earth’s total photon receipts would increase accordingly. The earth then would warm and increase photon emissions until a new equilibrium was reached. This is somewhat analogous to a situation where you are pumping falling rain out of a hole at a rate which keeps the hole from filling. Then some of the water from the pump begins to find its way back into the hole. The pumping rate must be increased to keep the hole from filling. CO2 added to the earth’s atmosphere will absorb some of the photons emitted from the earth’s surface because it just so happens that the wavelength of some of these photons matches that which is necessary for absorption by CO2. Note that photons coming from the sun are not of the wavelength absorbed by CO2. CO2 reemits the absorbed photon energy in all directions. And similar to the mirror reflection example explained above a significant portion of these reemitted photons strike the earth’s surface. This increased photon energy causes the earth to warm until the earth emits enough additional photon energy to reach a photon energy equilibrium. I don't think what I've said above is that controversial in the scientific community, even in Missouri. There is some controversy about how much direct warming there is from CO2 but the real controversy is about the feedback effect to this warming.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 10, 2016 16:49:03 GMT
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 Nautonnier, I’m not going to try to convince you that CO2 has a greenhouse effect since that is a misnomer. Nor am I going to try to convince you that it “traps heat”. I am going to try to convince you that CO2 causes the earth to warm and since temperature is the way of measuring warmth I’ll need to use the word temperature. The sun continually bombards the earth with photons at a fairly steady rate. These photons are little packets of energy. 30-35% of the incoming photons are reflected back into space (albedo) and the rest are absorbed. The earth also emits photons and the higher its temperature, the more photon energy it emits. The normal state is one in which the earth emits an amount of photon energy over the year equal to that received from the sun. As a result, the earth’s average surface temperature stays almost constant from year to year. If the sun were to increase its photon rate to the earth, the earth’s temperatures would increase by an amount which causes its photon emissions to increase enough to offset the increased energy from the sun. If a large mirror were placed near the earth, perpendicular to the direction of the sun, which reflected photons emitted by the earth back to the earth, the earth’s total photon receipts would increase accordingly. The earth then would warm and increase photon emissions until a new equilibrium was reached. This is somewhat analogous to a situation where you are pumping falling rain out of a hole at a rate which keeps the hole from filling. Then some of the water from the pump begins to find its way back into the hole. The pumping rate must be increased to keep the hole from filling. CO2 added to the earth’s atmosphere will absorb some of the photons emitted from the earth’s surface because it just so happens that the wavelength of some of these photons matches that which is necessary for absorption by CO2. Note that photons coming from the sun are not of the wavelength absorbed by CO2. CO2 reemits the absorbed photon energy in all directions. And similar to the mirror reflection example explained above a significant portion of these reemitted photons strike the earth’s surface. This increased photon energy causes the earth to warm until the earth emits enough additional photon energy to reach a photon energy equilibrium. I don't think what I've said above is that controversial in the scientific community, even in Missouri. There is some controversy about how much direct warming there is from CO2 but the real controversy is about the feedback effect to this warming. Duwayne, Even in Missouri you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 10, 2016 18:53:37 GMT
CO2 reemits the absorbed photon energy in all directions. And similar to the mirror reflection example explained above a significant portion of these reemitted photons strike the earth’s surface. This increased photon energy causes the earth to warm until the earth emits enough additional photon energy to reach a photon energy equilibrium. I don't think what I've said above is that controversial in the scientific community, even in Missouri. There is some controversy about how much direct warming there is from CO2 but the real controversy is about the feedback effect to this warming. photon energy equilibrium is not controversial? What about the other modes of energy transference such as phonons? I think the only equilibrium represented in mainstream science is an unqualified energy equilibrium not restricted to photons. Sure photons may find an energy equilibrium in the absence of other means of heat transfer but not independent of in the presence of other means. This is why both Einstein and Planck felt eventually there would be a unified theory of energy rather than the widening gap implied by photon theory. Yep if they were right it remains to be discovered. But if you are an engineer you are going to get sued if you ignore the other means of energy transfer and design your stuff like the so-called consensus climate science does.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 10, 2016 21:27:12 GMT
Duwayne, Even in Missouri you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it. Horses are practical creatures, even in Missouri. If they are thirsty they will drink ... unless, of course, they smell a rat ... in which case they will look for another water hole. Show me requires more than just pointing out what looks to be water.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 10, 2016 23:05:13 GMT
Duwayne, Even in Missouri you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it. Horses are practical creatures, even in Missouri. If they are thirsty they will drink ... unless, of course, they smell a rat ... in which case they will look for another water hole. Show me requires more than just pointing out what looks to be water. I object to the gender bias in Andrew's post.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 10, 2016 23:41:19 GMT
Nautonnier, I’m not going to try to convince you that CO2 has a greenhouse effect since that is a misnomer. Nor am I going to try to convince you that it “traps heat”. I am going to try to convince you that CO2 causes the earth to warm and since temperature is the way of measuring warmth I’ll need to use the word temperature. The sun continually bombards the earth with photons at a fairly steady rate. These photons are little packets of energy. 30-35% of the incoming photons are reflected back into space (albedo) and the rest are absorbed. The earth also emits photons and the higher its temperature, the more photon energy it emits. The normal state is one in which the earth emits an amount of photon energy over the year equal to that received from the sun. As a result, the earth’s average surface temperature stays almost constant from year to year. If the sun were to increase its photon rate to the earth, the earth’s temperatures would increase by an amount which causes its photon emissions to increase enough to offset the increased energy from the sun. If a large mirror were placed near the earth, perpendicular to the direction of the sun, which reflected photons emitted by the earth back to the earth, the earth’s total photon receipts would increase accordingly. The earth then would warm and increase photon emissions until a new equilibrium was reached. This is somewhat analogous to a situation where you are pumping falling rain out of a hole at a rate which keeps the hole from filling. Then some of the water from the pump begins to find its way back into the hole. The pumping rate must be increased to keep the hole from filling. CO2 added to the earth’s atmosphere will absorb some of the photons emitted from the earth’s surface because it just so happens that the wavelength of some of these photons matches that which is necessary for absorption by CO2. Note that photons coming from the sun are not of the wavelength absorbed by CO2. CO2 reemits the absorbed photon energy in all directions. And similar to the mirror reflection example explained above a significant portion of these reemitted photons strike the earth’s surface. This increased photon energy causes the earth to warm until the earth emits enough additional photon energy to reach a photon energy equilibrium. I don't think what I've said above is that controversial in the scientific community, even in Missouri. There is some controversy about how much direct warming there is from CO2 but the real controversy is about the feedback effect to this warming. I have no particular problem with your general layout of the model. I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that there is a temporal component to any of these energy transfers that may be referred to as lag times. Short wave energy absorbed by the Earth's surface, particularly the oceans, is not instantaneously re-radiated to space as longer-wave radiation. Certainly the oceans radiate long-wave radiation to the atmosphere and from there to space. But, to me, this represents energy deposited in the oceans some time back. These periods could be relatively short or long, depending. This lag allows the oceans to warm during periods of excess energy input and to cool under the opposite circumstances. These are general statements and perhaps I am getting it wrong. If so, please tell me how the oceans can heat or cool in cycles otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 11, 2016 3:48:11 GMT
I have no particular problem with your general layout of the model. I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that there is a temporal component to any of these energy transfers that may be referred to as lag times. Short wave energy absorbed by the Earth's surface, particularly the oceans, is not instantaneously re-radiated to space as longer-wave radiation. Certainly the oceans radiate long-wave radiation to the atmosphere and from there to space. But, to me, this represents energy deposited in the oceans some time back. These periods could be relatively short or long, depending. This lag allows the oceans to warm during periods of excess energy input and to cool under the opposite circumstances. These are general statements and perhaps I am getting it wrong. If so, please tell me how the oceans can heat or cool in cycles otherwise. Scientists estimate that something like 85% of sunlight absorbed on the planet is absorbed by water. Most of it in the top 100 meters of the ocean but also in clouds, water vapor, lakes, and streams. . . .probably in that order. But this one you need to think out yourself. A few scientists have offered the idea but its not popular in the current political environment. First some background: If you have an object surrounded by a heated box the water in the box will warm up to the temperature of the shell of the box. Basic equilibrium theory of two objects without other influences converging to an identical temperature. You may already know that if you dig a deep mine the bottom of the mine shaft will be warmer than the surface. Thats due to the heat gradient between the molten core of the earth and the surface. This point is being made just to complete the box in which the oceans are in. The ocean bottom is attempting to heat the ocean bottom and would do so very successfully if water were solid instead of liquid. However, convection moves the heat that comes from the ocean bottom to the surface of the ocean. The top of the ocean is capped by an atmosphere that averages 15 degrees centigrade. So the ocean is enclosed by heat emitting ocean bottom fed by a molten core and an atmosphere that is 15C. So why does the average temperature of the ocean hover around 3 degrees centigrade? A theory: The only answer I can think of is super cooled liquids are downwelling to the bottom of the ocean eliminating the small amount of heat that conducts through the earths crust and the small amount of heat that conducts down from the surface. This injection of super cold water has to also override the downwelling of brines resulting from evaporation off the ocean surface in the low latitudes. Science has not one freaking clue as to how much of these brines downwell but one can bet a lot more super cold brines must be downwelling than warm brines. So what would cause that cold downwelling to vary? Well melt a lot of ice off the poles of the ocean and the ocean surface is exposed to being whipped by winds creating both evaporation and freezing. One thing that has been noted is the low ice of recent years has caused the top years in ice refreezing as well. When sea water freezes it squeezes out super dense, super cold brines that sink to the bottom of the ocean. The resulting sea ice is basically fresh water and as I understand it drinkable, though I would guess some salts remain. After the surface ocean is frozen then you have effectively insulation over the top of the ocean. Somewhat like an igloo. So in my opinion this cyclical nature of the Arctic ocean that allowed Captain Larsen in 1944 to freely navigate through the deep water route with a small slow wooden boat pretty much at full throttle. The deep water route as far as I know has only been open one year in the current low ice conditions. In fact the passage was completed in the 1930's, albeit with a relay of trading vessels, but there was not a lot of interesting in undergoing the journey since Amundsen had already done it and had a solid claim on first to do so decades before in 1906. What causes what is a big question. Lots of ice may spell a build up of heat that gradually erodes the ice. Finally the upwelling of super cold water spurred by excessive downwelling of near frozen brines from evaporation and ice refreezing may build up and with upwelling of colder water it may be sufficient to affect the atmosphere, cool it and promote multi-year ice again. Of course the above is one of those theories based on ignorance. I am too ignorant to think of an alternative that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 11, 2016 4:39:01 GMT
Joe B. has winter on his Sat summary. Bummer news for west coast
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 11, 2016 7:15:36 GMT
Horses are practical creatures, even in Missouri. If they are thirsty they will drink ... unless, of course, they smell a rat ... in which case they will look for another water hole. Show me requires more than just pointing out what looks to be water. I object to the gender bias in Andrew's post. The males tend to be more pig headed and stubborn than the females.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 11, 2016 7:21:26 GMT
Just re-read Astro's original post and then took a look at NOAA's latest. He agrees with the temp and precip. forecasts and says, indirectly, no LA Nina. Wish he had been more specific so we could have had a definitive statement to quote. He said..... "Talk of La Niña?'
Despite conventional forecasters' years of erroneous bad calls on El Niño there will not be a true El Niño until mid-2019, and it will dominate the year 2020 as well.
Then, as the warm El Niño peters out in 2020, it will be followed by a powerfully cold La Niña in 2021-2022 - the first under the new climate regime of global cooling.
La Niña ushers in cooler-than-normal sea surface temperatures to develop in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
But the 2017 edition of the 1818 Farmers’ Almanac says that “El Niño is gone, with a "50/50 chance for La Niña to develop by the fall."It sounded like he said no La Nina till 2021? Theo has been saying that there will be no ENSO until 2021 when there will be a very significant event. This is another area where it is important to know what is meant by various terms glibly thrown about by everyone. For NOAA/NASA El Nino / La Nina are only concerned with a very small virtual area of the Pacific: "El Niño (La Niña) is a phenomenon in the equatorial Pacific Ocean characterized by a five consecutive 3-month running mean of sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region that is above (below) the threshold of +0.5°C (-0.5°C). This standard of measure is known as the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI)."Niño 3.4 (5oNorth-5oSouth) (170-120oWest)). Data (monthly input to the Oceanic Niño Index).If the warming is in a strip 6 o-9 oNorth and above 50C NOAA will not call it an El Nino similarly if one of the other 'Nino' boxes heats or cools NOAA will not call it an El Nino. The original definition remember was that the anchovy catch was good or bad. Theo has a completely different definition of an ENSO event that appears to be both wider in scope and narrower in definition and has said for some time that there will be no ENSO event until a significant La Nina in 2021.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 11, 2016 16:04:28 GMT
CO2 reemits the absorbed photon energy in all directions. And similar to the mirror reflection example explained above a significant portion of these reemitted photons strike the earth’s surface. This increased photon energy causes the earth to warm until the earth emits enough additional photon energy to reach a photon energy equilibrium. I don't think what I've said above is that controversial in the scientific community, even in Missouri. There is some controversy about how much direct warming there is from CO2 but the real controversy is about the feedback effect to this warming. photon energy equilibrium is not controversial? What about the other modes of energy transference such as phonons? I think the only equilibrium represented in mainstream science is an unqualified energy equilibrium not restricted to photons. Sure photons may find an energy equilibrium in the absence of other means of heat transfer but not independent of in the presence of other means. This is why both Einstein and Planck felt eventually there would be a unified theory of energy rather than the widening gap implied by photon theory. Yep if they were right it remains to be discovered. But if you are an engineer you are going to get sued if you ignore the other means of energy transfer and design your stuff like the so-called consensus climate science does. Everyone’s heard about Einstein’s theory, but here’s my theory of Einstein. In 1905 while working as an assistant in the Swiss patent office, he suddenly jumped ahead of the scientific thinking of the time. One of his key insights in 1905 concerned light quanta which years later others labeled “photons”. This created a major controversy among the great scientists of the time and he found little support from the scientific community. But rather than becoming embroiled in defending his new insight, he moved his thinking forward (in his spare time) based on this insight. Building on his insight into light and energy that same year he came out with a paper that said mass could be converted to massless particles of energy, an example of which is the sun’s nuclear reaction to generate light quanta (photons). Later the terms in his equation were rewritten to the more familiar E=MCsquared equation which uses the speed of photons (C) as a key term. He then in that same year advanced his thought process to what is called special relativity and later to general relativity which requires an insight into light and gravity and space and time. Using photons, it is possible to draw a 2 dimensional graph of space-time to aid in the understanding of what is pretty much impossible when one tries to think in 4 dimensions. Einstein was a visual thinker and photons helped him. Einstein’s light quanta theory was interjected into a world where scientists believed light traveled in waves through a media. For there to be waves a media had to exist and they theorized it was ether. Einstein accepted the fact that photons had an associated wavelength but he viewed this as a duality where ether was not required. One way of visualizing this is look at photons as individual particles of energy which travels in a wave pattern rather than a straight line. With all of Einstein’s contributions to science, he only ever received 1 Nobel prize. That was for his light quantum theory to which the term photons was later applied. And my theory is that this basic insight was part of the reason he as able to leap ahead of the leading scientists of his time who were mired in a controversy concerning his theory. Icefisher, the Planck – Einstein discussions are interesting, but I’ve never seen anything from them that that would indicate that CO2 doesn’t warm the earth. They would support the Stefan-Boltzman Law and the Stefan-Boltzman equations. I borrowed the photon concept to provide a simple, more visual explanation of those equations in an effort to be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 11, 2016 16:15:57 GMT
Joe B. has winter on his Sat summary. Bummer news for west coast Link?
|
|