| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Good news on the weather front... |
|
Page 7 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 3:48 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of
change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need
to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
[/quote]
We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can
be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW-
believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using
more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and
more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
[quote]Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
*way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
important.
If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
John Savard
Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
for too.
You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past
four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter.
Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the
Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input
of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
[/quote]
You need more data.
[quote]You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an
excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people
smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public
from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education
system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
[/quote]
The average American certainly understands the economic implications
of cutting fuel use in the short term, so he must be learning
something.
[quote]Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
[/quote]
The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
[quote]Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
[/quote]
Good. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jax... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 6:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
And what has Europe accomplished in their effort to reduce CO2?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tIsIm.121752$la3.113328 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
Quoting from Science (Oct 8, 2009)
The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they
are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures
were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea
level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no
permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica
and Greenland,"
[/quote]
You didn't expect that all to happen overnight did you, Peter?
_________________________________
According to the IPCC, if we stabilise at 1990 levels, we can expect a +2
degree warming and less than 1% of the sea rise of (the unspecified period
in the past in the Science article).
Now, this means that the same amount of CO2 today has only one fifth of the
impact it had back then on temperature (2 degrees vs 10 degrees) and much
smaller again on sea level.
So, at least 80% of the reason it was so much warmer back then had nothing
to do with CO2, because the CO2 was the same but the impact far higher.
The question in my mind is whether these other factors were 80% - as the
Science article snippet implies - or 100% of the reason it was warmer back
then.
Given that we also had massive ice ages with 1500 ppm CO2, its really,
really hard for me to extract any meaningful data from the historical
record, other than there is no clear, obvious and compelling connection
between CO2 and temperature. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jax... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:01 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Jax wrote:
On Nov 5, 6:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
And what has Europe accomplished in their effort to reduce CO2?
EU15 overall about -2% but promised -8%. UK is on target to exceed cuts
in CO2 promised at Kyoto. France, Germany and Sweden have also cut CO2
beyond what they promised. Small countries have not done so well. The
last set of figures I could find free access online are in this news article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3297515/Europe-is-missing-...
Over the same timescale US emissions went up by 15%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
Regards,
Martin Brown
[/quote]
Now explain how and when EU managed a 2% reduction after 12 yrs. Was
it by improved technology, sacrifice, or innovation? Or was it a
fortunate windfall and accounting adjustments?
How has EU been doing since 2000? The Profligate Wasters of Energy
have increased their emissions by 2% with a growing population and
economy (well not this yr so expect emissions to drop as well) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]oriel36 wrote:
Planetary dynamics govern global climate and Newton's empirical agenda
of experiment/predictions rely on an Ra/Dec system that cannot
represent daily rotation or orbital motion -
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates.
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences.
[/quote]
Why should you care,look at the intellectual lightweights contending
with the reckless conclusion based on assuming carbon dioxide is a
global temperature dial and the recent global temperature spike is
due exclusively to that source,these empirical lightweights are every
bit part of the charade as you crowd are,there is no goodness to it
and it diminishes Western civilisation to the point that all the
exists are people exposed to fear mongering by filtering terrestrial
and celestial phenomena through pollution- you literally have a
society with its head in the gutter/pollution.
A planet ,due to its rotational inclination,experiences conditions
between equatorial and polar extremes with the Earth's inclination of
23 1/2 degrees highly towards the equatorial end of the spectrum but
'tilt' in itself causes nothing,the seasons will exist regardless of
inclination as the dynamic behind seasonal changes strictly emerge
from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and should a planet
exist with 0 degrees inclination it will still have the seasons
expressed as total equatorial conditions,if 90 degrees then total
polar conditions.
The carbon dioxide bandwagon is just that,it fits too neatly with
lucrative agendas or one based on social tyranny where nobody has a
real interest in the link between planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects such as global climate which in turn creates the seasonal
hemispherical weather patterns. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
wsnell01 at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 3:48 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of
change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need
to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can
be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW-
[/quote]
Keeping some of it as feedstock for the petrochemicals industry would be
wise. But we have sufficient oil and coal reserves to cause serious
levels of CO2 if burned - in excess of 4x present day values.
And as fossil fuel gets scarcer we will find more that becomes
economically extractable from more difficult reserves.
[quote]believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using
more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and
more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
[/quote]
More straw men from fat ugly Americans for a dead planet.
Do you not believe in good stewardship of our planet?
[quote]Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
*way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
important.
If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
John Savard
Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
for too.
You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past
four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter.
Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the
Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input
of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
You need more data.
[/quote]
There is enough scientific evidence already that the situation is clear.
Only the professional deniers for hire pretend otherwise.
[quote]
You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an
excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people
smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public
from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education
system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
The average American certainly understands the economic implications
of cutting fuel use in the short term, so he must be learning
something.
[/quote]
Until the price gets to $6/gallon or higher I somehow doubt it.
Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
[quote]Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
[/quote]
Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
[quote]
Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Good.
[/quote]
But bad for the planet.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jax wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 6:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
And what has Europe accomplished in their effort to reduce CO2?
[/quote]
EU15 overall about -2% but promised -8%. UK is on target to exceed cuts
in CO2 promised at Kyoto. France, Germany and Sweden have also cut CO2
beyond what they promised. Small countries have not done so well. The
last set of figures I could find free access online are in this news article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3297515/Europe-is-missing-carbon-cut-targets.html
Over the same timescale US emissions went up by 15%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 5, 5:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates.
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences.
Why should you care...
I suspect you have no answer as to why Venus, Earth and Mars have
such different climates. Given that distance from the Sun is not
sufficient to account for those differences, Gerald, have you a
hypothesis?
[/quote]
Making planetary comparisons based on daily rotational and orbital
characteristics allows common traits to emerge,one of which is
dispensing with the hypothesis which Copernicus originally introduced
in order to explain the seasons -
"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
Revolutionibus
It is quite an experience to live among people who consider themselves
astronomers yet cannot apply the power of modern imaging to alleviate
the present hyperfuss centered around pollution and look at global
climate from a fresh perspective and specifically planetary
dynamics.Describing the Earth's climate as mainly Equatorial should
just be a normal working principle by now along with the climate and
meteorological consequences ,the fact that nobody will acknowledge
planetary characteristics between equatorial and polar rather than no
tilt/no seasons hypothesis is a painful reminder that as long as
astronomy remains in a deep empirical freeze,the consequences for
everyone are far more terrible than any temperature spike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quadibloc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 1:27 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]That's right,I am the madman who believes the Earth turns through 360
degrees in 24 hours or at a rate of 15 degrees per hour in a forum
that believes otherwise !.
[/quote]
The sun rises each morning, marking the dawn of a new day.
Our clocks, which take 24 hours to go through the hours of a day, keep
pace to the average of the natural noon cycle - if a clock is running
properly, it will show 12 o'clock sometime near when the Sun crosses
the meridian, all year long.
And we know the daily cycle is caused by the Earth's rotation.
The Earth's day is 24 hours. So why wouldn't the Earth's rotation be
24 hours?
After all, do we see the Moon spinning in the night sky? No. It always
keeps the same face turned to the Earth.
So why not say that the Moon doesn't rotate - and that the Earth
rotates every 24 hours?
For many purposes, that might well be the easiest thing to understand.
But certain technical details of the Moon's motion, some of its
librations, can best be understood if we recognize that while the
Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, and thus nonuniform, the
Moon, when considered with reference to the moving stars, spins at a
*uniform* rate, so that the difference between the orbit and the
uniform rotation gives us the ability to see sometimes a bit more of
the Moon's eastern limb, sometimes a bit more of it's western limb.
Similarly, the cause of the Equation of Time becomes apparent when we
consider the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit, and the
inclination of its axis of rotation to the ecliptic, leading to a non-
uniform annual circle of the Earth around the Sun when projected on
the plane of the Earth's equator - compared to a *uniform* rotation,
when compared to the stars, which reflects the sum of the 24 hour day
and a uniform annual cycle? So the Equation of Time becomes the
difference between the Earth's actual orbit around the Sun, and a
movement through 360 degrees in one year at a constant uniform rate
corresponding to the average of orbital motion.
You are sometimes subjected to harsh criticism, yes. The reason this
happens is simple enough: you are yourself willing to strongly
criticize the conventional view... when it is apparent that you have
not made the effort to really understand its basis, and are unwilling
to take the benefit of the explanations some here have provided.
Yes, you may feel you have already figured enough out that you know
better, and you can see we're obviously wrong... but then why is it no
one else seems to be impressed by your arguments or the images you
point us to?
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
oriel36 wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 5:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates.
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences.
Why should you care...
[/quote]
I suspect you have no answer as to why Venus, Earth and Mars have
such different climates. Given that distance from the Sun is not
sufficient to account for those differences, Gerald, have you a
hypothesis? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| yourmommycalled... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:09 am, wsnel... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can
be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW-
believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using
more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and
more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
[/quote]
Now Now ,just because you're a miser and refuse to turn on your
refrigerator at night and you only have a single 15 watt lightbulb in
you house (6000 kwh your statement not mine) that doesn't mean every
one else wants to live the same way. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
oriel36 wrote:
[quote]
Making planetary comparisons based on daily rotational and orbital
characteristics allows common traits to emerge,one of which is
dispensing with the hypothesis which Copernicus originally introduced
in order to explain the seasons -
"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
Revolutionibus
It is quite an experience to live among people who consider themselves
astronomers yet cannot apply the power of modern imaging to alleviate
the present hyperfuss centered around pollution and look at global
climate from a fresh perspective and specifically planetary
dynamics.Describing the Earth's climate as mainly Equatorial should
just be a normal working principle by now along with the climate and
meteorological consequences ,the fact that nobody will acknowledge
planetary characteristics between equatorial and polar rather than no
tilt/no seasons hypothesis is a painful reminder that as long as
astronomy remains in a deep empirical freeze,the consequences for
everyone are far more terrible than any temperature spike.
[/quote]
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates?
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences.
Cat got your tongue? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quadibloc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 3:34 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:iLFIm.116796$5n1.54901 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates?
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those
differences.
Cat got your tongue?
It is AGW believers who think they know what causes climate; its up to them
to explain this.
[/quote]
Oriel is not (well, not merely) an AGW skeptic. This had been a
question to expose his ignorance of basic physics. It was not expected
that (common, garden-variety) AGW skeptics would be on the same level.
Your post came as a surprise.
The answer he is looking for, of course, is Venus' heavy atmosphere of
carbon dioxide, and Mars' very tenuous atmosphere. That is why Venus
is even hotter than its closeness to the Sun would account for.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:iLFIm.116796$5n1.54901 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
[quote]oriel36 wrote:
Making planetary comparisons based on daily rotational and orbital
characteristics allows common traits to emerge,one of which is
dispensing with the hypothesis which Copernicus originally introduced
in order to explain the seasons -
"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
Revolutionibus
It is quite an experience to live among people who consider themselves
astronomers yet cannot apply the power of modern imaging to alleviate
the present hyperfuss centered around pollution and look at global
climate from a fresh perspective and specifically planetary
dynamics.Describing the Earth's climate as mainly Equatorial should
just be a normal working principle by now along with the climate and
meteorological consequences ,the fact that nobody will acknowledge
planetary characteristics between equatorial and polar rather than no
tilt/no seasons hypothesis is a painful reminder that as long as
astronomy remains in a deep empirical freeze,the consequences for
everyone are far more terrible than any temperature spike.
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates?
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those
differences.
Cat got your tongue?
[/quote]
It is AGW believers who think they know what causes climate; its up to them
to explain this.
A significant part of the earth's warmth derives from radioactive decay of
heavy metals in the earth's core. Whilst that might be a comparable effect
for Venus, studies of Mars's magnetic field suggest that it doesn't have
anything like the the same core composition to earth, and hence far less
radioactive heavy metals to provide internal warming.
I do not accept that direct comparison of *absolute* temperatures of
different solar planets is meaningful. However, changes to these
temperatures over geologically short period of times could well mean
something, as this isolates a huge number of other variables. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
A significant part of the earth's warmth derives from radioactive decay
of heavy metals in the earth's core.
[/quote]
You say significant. Give us W/m^2 for geothermal energy as compared to
the W/m^2 due to solar radiation, Peter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:29 am
|
|