| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Good news on the weather front... |
|
Page 8 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 7:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]wsnel... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
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-
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]
Once the energy required to extract a fuel exceeds the amount of
energy available from that fuel, there will be no point in using it
for fuel, although it might still be economical as a feedstock.
[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.
More straw men from fat ugly Americans for a dead planet.
Do you not believe in good stewardship of our planet?
[/quote]
If someone is concerned enough about the planet to worry and complain
about CO2 levels, they should be setting a good example. Most
European countries emit far more CO2 per capita than most third-world
countries. See if you can reduce your carbon footprint down to those
levels.
[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.
There is enough scientific evidence already that the situation is clear.
Only the professional deniers for hire pretend otherwise.
[/quote]
Again, you need more data. Gather it on your own dime.
[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.
Until the price gets to $6/gallon or higher I somehow doubt it.
Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
[/quote]
Again, reduce your carbon footprint to levels matching those of the
average citizen of India, for example.
[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.
Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
[/quote]
Europe isn't meeting its goals, and its reductions to date seem to
have something to do with closing down old coal-burning plants.
Meanwhile, China has been building new coal-burning plants by the week
and burns every barrel of oil it can get its hands on.
[quote]Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Good.
But bad for the planet.
[/quote]
Unless you can demonstrate useful "progress" on your own part and that
of your country's, then remain silent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, yourmommycalled <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 5:09 am, wsnel... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
My last month's bill showed a shade over 400 KwH, down about 14 KwH
over the same period last year. I guess since the Earth is still
cooling, I didn't have to run the air conditioner as much.
The refrigerator probably takes up 30% of the electricity I use during
the cool months. It is relatively new compared to some of my other
appliances, but it isn't clear whether the carbon footprint of having
a newer one delivered is less than continued use of the existing unit,
which would very likely end up being used by someone else anyway.
Maybe Zero can come up with a Cars-for-Clunkers-type program for
household appliances.
Actually, a single 15 watt CFL might suffice for someone living in a
studio apartment, but Uncle Al doesn't want to live that way, and
neither do very many of the rest of the Warmingistas. Private jets
are more their style. I will continue to turn out lights that I'm not
using and continue to look for ways to save energy, as I have done for
decades. I will not, however be preached at and lectured to by people
who live in glass houses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jax... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:24 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]The UK is on target to exceed the CO2 cuts it promised in the
Kyoto treaty. My own carbon footprint is down 10% over the past year
largely by improvements in loft insulation and energy efficient double
glazing. My car averages 55mpg. What's the US fleet average these days?
Regards,
Martin Brown
[/quote]
The UK had it's Kyoto target made before the agreement was ratified.
By a fortuitous selection of a high baseline year and the timely
discovery of a natural gas reserve. The UK made the switch from coal
to natural gas for economic reasons, not any CO2 emissions issue. And
now they are having to import natural gas from Russia to keep power
plants running. This is not true sustainable progress, only sub
optimization. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
wsnell01 at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Good.
But bad for the planet.
Unless you can demonstrate useful "progress" on your own part and that
of your country's, then remain silent.
[/quote]
Tough. The UK is on target to exceed the CO2 cuts it promised in the
Kyoto treaty. My own carbon footprint is down 10% over the past year
largely by improvements in loft insulation and energy efficient double
glazing. My car averages 55mpg. What's the US fleet average these days?
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 6:24 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]wsnel... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 7:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Good.
But bad for the planet.
Unless you can demonstrate useful "progress" on your own part and that
of your country's, then remain silent.
Tough. The UK is on target to exceed the CO2 cuts it promised in the
Kyoto treaty.
[/quote]
If you replace coal with a "cleaner" fuel such as natural gas, all you
are doing is forcing someone else, somewhere to burn the coal you
would have used, or else they do without. The coal gets burned
anyway. IE, no net reduction in CO2.
[quote]My own carbon footprint is down 10% over the past year
largely by improvements in loft insulation and energy efficient double
glazing.
[/quote]
It's taken you THIS long to get around to insulating your dwelling?
Think of how much CO2 you were spewing out all of these years!
[quote]My car averages 55mpg.
[/quote]
If you are really concerned about Global Warming, why do you even
drive a car? Wouldn't a bicycle serve the same purpose?
[quote]What's the US fleet average these days?
[/quote]
By US fleet average do you mean to include those those Jaguars and
Land Rovers that I see rolling around (sometimes) on US roads? The
Bentleys, Rolls and Aston Martins use even more fuel, but those are
few and far between.
Anyway, my car probably equals or exceeds the UK fleet average. If
you have a problem with drivers of large SUVs, whether they live in
the US or in the UK, take it up with them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more
reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure.
In AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
[/quote]
Also, the angular energy induced into the Earth by the receeding
moon contributes to tectonics, and earthquakes and volcanoes,
volcanoes make a mess of the atmosphere, usually cool it.
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more reasonably
as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In
AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
Better question: what value is assumed in your favourite model?
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:U_JIm.117092$5n1.97470 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
A significant part of the earth's warmth derives from radioactive decay
of heavy metals in the earth's core.
You say significant. Give us W/m^2 for geothermal energy as compared to
the W/m^2 due to solar radiation, Peter.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more
reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure.
In AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
[/quote]
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 5:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Also, the angular energy induced into the Earth by the receeding
moon contributes to tectonics, and earthquakes and volcanoes,
volcanoes make a mess of the atmosphere, usually cool it.
Ken
[/quote]
Certainly tides are raised and there is friction under the tidal
bulges. Those for forces would be greater near the equator than the
poles, but I doubt that there is any correlation with the tectonic
plate motions. Have you any data, Ken? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:t04Jm.124235$la3.85084 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more
reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In
AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
[/quote]
Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many
similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of
Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them
will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro
newsgroup).
Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep
within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are
heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than
in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of
the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer
from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat
transfer.
AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many
datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental
data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick
numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the
trade as "curve fitting". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 6:03 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Nov 6, 5:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Also, the angular energy induced into the Earth by the receeding
moon contributes to tectonics, and earthquakes and volcanoes,
volcanoes make a mess of the atmosphere, usually cool it.
Ken
Certainly tides are raised and there is friction under the tidal
bulges. Those for forces would be greater near the equator than the
poles, but I doubt that there is any correlation with the tectonic
plate motions. Have you any data, Ken?
[/quote]
Crustal evolution is governed by fluid dynamics,specifically
differential rotation ,the geological signatures are seen in the
fracture zones coming off the Mid Atlantic Ridge -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Romanche_Trench.jpg
The common mechanism which binds planetary spherical deviation with
the evolution of oceanic crust is the differential rotation occuring
in the viscous interior but given the intellectual lightweights that
exist today,I hardly expect those who prize intelligence as a human
attribute could spot the remarkable Romanche trench existing the the
Earth maximum rotational speed and the lag/advance traits of crustal
evolution which produces it.
The key to climate,geology and just about every terrestrial science is
planetary dynamics and people who try to explain daily rotation
through the motion of constellations around Polaris would have no idea
about this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| yourmommycalled... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 4:21 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:t04Jm.124235$la3.85084 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more
reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In
AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many
similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of
Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them
will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro
newsgroup).
Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep
within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are
heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than
in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of
the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer
from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat
transfer.
AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many
datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental
data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick
numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the
trade as "curve fitting".
[/quote]
Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at
the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in
a climate model? Careful how you answer, because your posts show you
haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil
your posts have no useful opinion |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 7:50 pm, yourmommycalled <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 4:21 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:t04Jm.124235$la3.85084 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more
reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In
AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many
similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of
Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them
will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro
newsgroup).
Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep
within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are
heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than
in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of
the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer
from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat
transfer.
AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many
datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental
data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick
numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the
trade as "curve fitting".
Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at
the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in
a climate model?
[/quote]
Astronomers like good artists,composers or writers pick up on details
that others skip over or are oblivious to,it is a talent which many
people have but seldom use .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrbXPKz-Zw&feature=related
I looked at an eroding sandbank after a rainstorm and liked the idea
that differential rotation of the viscous interior eroding
incrementally at the crustal plate margins so that people who
experience earthquakes are feeling the consequences of planetary
rotation in a geological sense.Little point in explaining this further
to people who organise the Earth's interior around 'convection cells'.
Careful how you answer, because your posts show you
[quote]haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil
your posts have no useful opinion
[/quote]
Did you hear the one about people who tried to explain daily rotation
using the constellations around Polaris ?,who would believe people
would believe in such a thing !. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Collins... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 7 Nov, 21:17, oriel36 <kelleher.ger... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 7:50 pm, yourmommycalled <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 4:21 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:t04Jm.124235$la3.85084 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more
reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In
AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many
similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of
Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them
will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro
newsgroup).
Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep
within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are
heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than
in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of
the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer
from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat
transfer.
AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many
datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental
data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick
numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the
trade as "curve fitting".
Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at
the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in
a climate model?
Astronomers like good artists,composers or writers pick up on details
that others skip over or are oblivious to,it is a talent which many
people have but seldom use .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrbXPKz-Zw&feature=related
I looked at an eroding sandbank after a rainstorm and liked the idea
that differential rotation of the viscous interior eroding
incrementally at the crustal plate margins so that people who
experience earthquakes are feeling the consequences of planetary
rotation in a geological sense.Little point in explaining this further
to people who organise the Earth's interior around 'convection cells'.
Careful how you answer, because your posts show you
haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil
your posts have no useful opinion
Did you hear the one about people who tried to explain daily rotation
using the constellations around Polaris ?,who would believe people
would believe in such a thing !.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I would be very interested in your explanation of why the
contellations appear to rotate around Polaris with such a regular
motion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 12:01 am, Mike Collins <acridiniumes... at (no spam) googlemail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On 7 Nov, 21:17, oriel36 <kelleher.ger... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:50 pm, yourmommycalled <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 4:21 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:t04Jm.124235$la3.85084 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
You got your units wrong.
I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more
reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In
AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then
"refined".
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth
derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core",
if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many
similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of
Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them
will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro
newsgroup).
Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep
within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are
heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than
in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of
the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer
from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat
transfer.
AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many
datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental
data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick
numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the
trade as "curve fitting".
Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at
the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in
a climate model?
Astronomers like good artists,composers or writers pick up on details
that others skip over or are oblivious to,it is a talent which many
people have but seldom use .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrbXPKz-Zw&feature=related
I looked at an eroding sandbank after a rainstorm and liked the idea
that differential rotation of the viscous interior eroding
incrementally at the crustal plate margins so that people who
experience earthquakes are feeling the consequences of planetary
rotation in a geological sense.Little point in explaining this further
to people who organise the Earth's interior around 'convection cells'.
Careful how you answer, because your posts show you
haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil
your posts have no useful opinion
Did you hear the one about people who tried to explain daily rotation
using the constellations around Polaris ?,who would believe people
would believe in such a thing !.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I would be very interested in your explanation of why the
contellations appear to rotate around Polaris with such a regular
motion.
[/quote]
The references for the Earth's annual/orbital cycle is contained in
the return of a star in 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes while daily/
rotation cycle is referenced to the Sun -
" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy." Huygens
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
The creation of the average 24 hour day in tandem with the 365/366 day
calendar system then sets the framework for the equatorial coordinate
system where a star returns constantly in 'sidereal time',in other
words,it is based on calendar timekeeping averages and not raw daily
rotational and orbital planetary dynamics behind the creation of the
timekeeping averages themselves.This may be slightly intricate but by
no means difficult but I will repeat it - the raw astronomical cycles
provide the references for timekeeping averages which in turn provide
the framework for the Ra/Dec convenience that you call 'sidereal
time'.
When scientist predicts the date of the next solar eclipse ,they will
be doing so based on the calendar system and the timekeeping averages
which constitute Ra/Dec,this indicates how useful the system is
without falling for the trap that it explains planetary
dynamics ,however,the attempt to use the system to determine rotation
in 23 hours 56 minutes leads to explaining the orbital cycle in 365
days for 3 years and 366 days for the fourth year and men are not
supposed to entertain such a dumb approach as this,certainly I do not
wish to explain it further.
The Earth's rotation can be explained and expressed as an isolated
fact - at the equator,the Earth turns through 1669.8 km representing
15 degrees/1 hour and an entire 40,075 km equatorial circumference
representing 360 degrees/24 hours Call me a madman for believing this
but physical geometry and geography makes it an absolute certainty.
It is not that difficult |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:12 am
|
|