Remember me
▼ Content

El Nino and Deep Faults



Page 1 of 212>
El Nino and Deep Faults11-06-2017 20:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
The link is to NOAA's web page about El Nino. It is possible that currents along the sea floor might need to be studied in greater detail. This is because if cold water flowing north from around Antarctica could have it's flow diverted into a deep fault in the sea floor. If so this could explain how the up welling of cold water slows while the ocean north of Australia warms.
In the state of Florida there are many subterranean rivers. These become known when a sink hole opens up. Such a flow of water could become heated from a deep fault releasing heated water along the fault that makes up the southwestern part of the Ring of Fire.
If so then this would show that such faults could impact the global climate on a scale that global warming is affected by it. And this would also suggest that the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges could also be warming the Arctic. If so then waste heat and possibly even ash going to the Arctic might need to be considered as greater threats than CO2.
And with El Nino, there is a subduction zone along the coast of South America as well as a fault that's north of Australia. It's always possible that the fault in the south has a river once every 3 or 4 years which allows for El Nino to happen.

The black line could be where cold water flows instead of up welling along the coast of South America. This is also the area where the IPCC stated that the surface water was warmer which is why we've been warming since 2013 and allowed for the IPCC to revise how it collects it's data and also allowed it to revise the previous 15 years of the Global Warming Pause.

https://goo.gl/photos/Bhfug1ke1cv9ZN8HA
https://goo.gl/images/1z2gGn
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/elnino/what-is-el-nino


Jim
Edited on 11-06-2017 20:34
12-06-2017 16:41
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
This link explains in a way how cold water rises.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/upwelling.html

According to the Laws of Thermodynamics warm water should be rising instead and not sinking. And this is something that makes me wonder if there is geological activity that acts as a sort of a pump.
It is known that around the Antarctic that there is a "river" of cold water that flows over and under water water fall. This could be because as parts of Antarctica melt that the cold fresh water displaces or pushes down cold salt water allowing such a flow. This is interesting as the Ganges River is fed by melting/retreating glaciers.

https://www.livescience.com/27390-antarctic-bottom-water-current-found.html
12-06-2017 18:03
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
This link explains in a way how cold water rises.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/upwelling.html

According to the Laws of Thermodynamics warm water should be rising instead and not sinking. And this is something that makes me wonder if there is geological activity that acts as a sort of a pump.
It is known that around the Antarctic that there is a "river" of cold water that flows over and under water water fall. This could be because as parts of Antarctica melt that the cold fresh water displaces or pushes down cold salt water allowing such a flow. This is interesting as the Ganges River is fed by melting/retreating glaciers.

https://www.livescience.com/27390-antarctic-bottom-water-current-found.html


You have to be aware of the real facts in matters like this: the heat flow from the core of the earth is a VERY steady flow. Things like Volcanoes are usually highly local. Earthquakes don't tap into the interior heat as you suggest could cause changes in current flows.

If you look at:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jelena/post/hnsc/steinneutrino.pdf

you can see that the highest level of heat escaping from the interior of the earth is 101 +/- 2.2 mW/M^2. The Sun's energy showing upon the Earth every day is something like 240 W/M^2 or about 2400 times as much energy in one day.

More importantly the Earth's heat is constant over 24 hours while the Sun's radiation is on and off over a 24 hour period causing an intense cycling effect. This along with the Earth's spin is what causes both the rivers of air in the atmosphere and the rivers of oceanic currents.
12-06-2017 19:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
This link explains in a way how cold water rises.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/upwelling.html

According to the Laws of Thermodynamics warm water should be rising instead and not sinking. And this is something that makes me wonder if there is geological activity that acts as a sort of a pump.
It is known that around the Antarctic that there is a "river" of cold water that flows over and under water water fall. This could be because as parts of Antarctica melt that the cold fresh water displaces or pushes down cold salt water allowing such a flow. This is interesting as the Ganges River is fed by melting/retreating glaciers.

https://www.livescience.com/27390-antarctic-bottom-water-current-found.html


You have to be aware of the real facts in matters like this: the heat flow from the core of the earth is a VERY steady flow. Things like Volcanoes are usually highly local. Earthquakes don't tap into the interior heat as you suggest could cause changes in current flows.

If you look at:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jelena/post/hnsc/steinneutrino.pdf

you can see that the highest level of heat escaping from the interior of the earth is 101 +/- 2.2 mW/M^2. The Sun's energy showing upon the Earth every day is something like 240 W/M^2 or about 2400 times as much energy in one day.

More importantly the Earth's heat is constant over 24 hours while the Sun's radiation is on and off over a 24 hour period causing an intense cycling effect. This along with the Earth's spin is what causes both the rivers of air in the atmosphere and the rivers of oceanic currents.


People do tend to forget the Earth spins. Maybe they stay up too late at night and never look out the window.


The Parrot Killer
13-06-2017 22:31
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
You guys are sad. wake, I am aware that the Earth's heat output is about 47 terrawatts which is about 0.03% of the heat in our atmosphere. This excludes thermal vents. As you have said, Ice Core research is iffy. It's not, it suggests geologic activity as being responsible for Ice Ages. You miss this because you look to debunk what someone else knows and then will turn around and post garbage.
Just like your friend Parrot Killer states, most people tend to forget the Earth rotates. I think he is suggesting people think there is another reason fro the day time and the time and it cooling when the Sun goes down.
It shows that neither of you have studied geology or science in any meaningful way. If you had then you would consider more of the history of climate change and what science suggests but both those subjects suggest nothing to either one of you. Why do you think I don't post much in here ? It's mostly 3 or 4 people looking to say the same things over and over again while trying to make people think there's a point to their point of view.


Jim
14-06-2017 00:41
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
You guys are sad. wake, I am aware that the Earth's heat output is about 47 terrawatts which is about 0.03% of the heat in our atmosphere. This excludes thermal vents. As you have said, Ice Core research is iffy. It's not, it suggests geologic activity as being responsible for Ice Ages. You miss this because you look to debunk what someone else knows and then will turn around and post garbage.
Just like your friend Parrot Killer states, most people tend to forget the Earth rotates. I think he is suggesting people think there is another reason fro the day time and the time and it cooling when the Sun goes down.
It shows that neither of you have studied geology or science in any meaningful way. If you had then you would consider more of the history of climate change and what science suggests but both those subjects suggest nothing to either one of you. Why do you think I don't post much in here ? It's mostly 3 or 4 people looking to say the same things over and over again while trying to make people think there's a point to their point of view.
Jim


Jim, you're back to taking offense where none was intended. I thought that we were over that.

Can YOU explain what the hell they are talking about when they say that they have discovered a source for the cold water they were missing and that would have some sort of connection to global warming? Cold water in general doesn't have a particularly tight connection to the Earth's output of energy beyond causing currents.

As I said, the difference in energy is two-fold: One, the entire Earth's output is like 0.1% of the energy it receives from the Sun each day. A warm day is about 80 degrees F or say 27 degree C. One thousandth of that is colder than the coldest spot anywhere in this universe.

I use those terms to impress upon you the difference in amplitude.

You use 47 terrawatts which is 47 trillion watts or 47 x 10^12 watts. When using numbers like that you have to be very careful because numbers that are that large - far beyond most people's normal reckoning - totally hides the fact that this is exuded over the entire Earth's surface and as I said as an average it's peak on thin ocean crusts deep in the ocean is only 101+-2.2 milliwatts/M^2. On the land areas is much smaller at only about 65+-1.6 milliwatts. I hope you realize that running your Facebook app on your smartphone uses more power than a square meter of energy from the Earth. And those numbers of yours include ALL of the thermal vents. And my reference said that the total exuded power is 44.2 terrawatts and not 47 but that's round-off errors and both are fine.

As for my comments about Ice Core results the only thing I said was iffy was the CO2 measurements. And I would stand by that. As I noted it can take between a decade and a century to grow an eighth of an inch of ice sheet. So any CO2 levels must be taken as very long term averages at best and I'm sure that the Russians know that. But this is, as usual, being misrepresented by the AGW school.

Furthermore - CO2 moves rather freely in ice. Don't believe it? Get a small bottle of carbonated water and freeze it. Do you see ANY bubbles in it? And when you allow it to slowly warm back to room temperature there is only a tiny amount of carbonation in it. This kindergarten experiment is something that used to be on every grade school's science programs.

You insist I am debunking you when in fact you have a misrepresentation of reality that I'm trying to correct. Rather than tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about why not simply look at my reference? I used that because 7 years ago I suffered a serious concussion and can no long remember nor visualize numbers as I used to.

Why would you think that oceanic currents should only rise when they are warm and fall when they are cold? The total density range of liquid water over it's temperature range is only 4%. This without complicating factors such as compounds in it. Ocean currents could easily overcome that tiny difference. This is something that you should have looked up before writing it simply not to give me a chance to "debunk" you.

Since you haven't been around here much you probably have missed some temperature measurements that should be of interest to you.

The NOAA chart on increasing temperature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

The actual satellite MGT is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Just for your consideration think of this: The industrial revolution started in 1880. The weather stations including the temperature measuring instruments were placed almost entire in and around towns.

The US underwent such rapid growth between 1880 and 1930 that cities expanded according to the US Census Bureau at a rate of about 40% per year. That is a remarkable urban growth curve. Rural growth was half of that or less.

https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/table-4.pdf

Initially building in urban areas begins with wooden buildings and then later as the population becomes richer they become brick and mortar.

During the war the urban growth shrunk to half of the rate. And most of that growth was on or very near the water. Meaning the urban heat island effect would be minimized with urban expansion.

And looking at the temperature growth curve - you see a pause during the war years and the economic recovery afterwards. The massive business growth returned about the time of President Kennedy's election. And NOAA's curve started up. And while percentage of growth of urban areas didn't go wild, two significant things occurred: the population in urban areas doubled between 1960 and 1990. And urban areas were rapidly changing from brick and mortar to concrete and glass.

In the original temperature records that had been on file it showed the highest temperatures on record to be between the late 1900's through 1920. That disappeared off of the record.

So now we are at this point - the satellite and the NOAA records do not match. We have NOAA setting the scale of the CO2 charts so that they match the temperature charts. You could scale the world population or the growth in car ownership to match those same temperature records.

Now it just so happens that Japan carefully measure the heat island effects of their cities vs. their farm land. The Japanese have always been a highly curious and technical people. What does their charts look like?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#/media/File:HeatIsland_Kanto_en.png

Remembering that the scaling is completely different and that the original heat records of the early 1900's were changed we see the identical chart as we see with the so-called global warming.

If you wish to believe I am trying to debunk you you're free to do so. But I instead am presenting you with an explanation of what in my mind appears to be going on.

It is my belief that if there HAS been any global warming it has been insignificant. The melting of the Arctic and the lower latitude glaciers in my mind are all perfectly natural when you take into account that the range of the Arctic was totally unknown before the Little Ice Age. And Greenland has STILL not returned to a rural farming capacity, meaning that this is still more thawing there to go.

And this has ALL coincided with a government world wide that is moving further and further left. Karl Marx in Das Kapital said that to gain control of the people you must first provide something to fear from which you can save them. Then they would demand socialism as their only savior from doom.

Socialist leaders believe that the common man on the street is a fool. That he is easily moved by his own needs and desires. And that he requires a government to MAKE him do what is best for everyone.

Strange isn't it that Anthropogenic Global Warming provides that monster that the super heroes can save you from?
14-06-2017 06:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: I am aware that the Earth's heat output is about 47 terrawatts which is about 0.03% of the heat in our atmosphere.

The earth does not output heat. You need to learn what heat is.

Heat is a flow of thermal energy per conduction or convection.

The earth outputs thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy.


James_ wrote: It shows that neither of you have studied geology or science in any meaningful way. If you had then you would consider more of the history of climate change and what science suggests but both those subjects suggest nothing to either one of you.

Not only does science not suggest anything (showing that you haven't studied any science in any meaningful way) but there is no Global Warming or "greenhouse" anything in science ... and there is no such thing as a "Global Climate."

You have been duped by warmizombies. You have been indoctrinated into a B'S religion. Get out while you can.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-06-2017 19:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
This is an informative link. And when ice core research is considered, that does suggest a source of heat from within our planet. And such heat output as discussed in this link is largely ignored. It is an important consideration because if melting polar caps affect tectonic activity (Scandinavia is still rising because of glacial melting since the peak of the last Ice Age) then waste heat could help to create a much warmer planet than has been experienced in millions of years. At the moment we just don't know which is why understanding how tectonic and geologic activity effects warming is important. This would help us to understand how what we do through industrialization and the depletion of ground water, deforestation, etc. can increase the amount of heat in our atmosphere can increase the effects of the natural warming cycle that our planet has been experiencing.
And if hydrothermal vents or deep faults are causing warming then like the BP oil spill leaked oil then they might be able to be plugged.

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/
Edited on 14-06-2017 19:57
14-06-2017 21:22
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/


This is an interesting paper. But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Recently in Science News there was an article on a paper that suggests that plate tectonics and wandering continents is a sign of a juvenile planet. The Earth's mantle appears to be cooling three times more rapidly than heretofore believed. And with it plate tectonics appears to be slowing and becoming less predictable due to that. For instance - Pacific coast plates are almost twice their usual period overdue.

So,they say, tectonics and continental motion may shortly end. Though what "shortly" is, your guess is as good as mine.
15-06-2017 01:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Wake, what is "climate change? Is it any sort of change whatsoever?

If I'm looking at various changes, how can I tell which ones are "climate" changes and which ones are just plain vanilla changes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-06-2017 18:31
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/


This is an interesting paper. But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Recently in Science News there was an article on a paper that suggests that plate tectonics and wandering continents is a sign of a juvenile planet. The Earth's mantle appears to be cooling three times more rapidly than heretofore believed. And with it plate tectonics appears to be slowing and becoming less predictable due to that. For instance - Pacific coast plates are almost twice their usual period overdue.

So,they say, tectonics and continental motion may shortly end. Though what "shortly" is, your guess is as good as mine.


Wake,
>> This is an interesting paper. But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. <<

It isn't. It is something that has been over looked and as we all know heat rises. That scientists would state that heated water stays on the sea floor would need to explain how thermodymics allows for that to happen.
The article did mention
>> In addition, farther up under the north pole, scientists discovered an eruption of intense seismic activity beginning in Gakkel Ridge in January of 1999 and continuing for seven months. That happens to be about the time Arctic ice extent took a nosedive, stabilizing after 2007. <<

But since you say that ice core research is to be dismissed there really is nothing that can be discussed with you. You seem to want to debunk science and replace it with an opinion which has been poorly thought out if given any thought at all.


Jim
15-06-2017 18:34
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Wake, what is "climate change? Is it any sort of change whatsoever?

If I'm looking at various changes, how can I tell which ones are "climate" changes and which ones are just plain vanilla changes?


.


"The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.


Jim
15-06-2017 20:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: "The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.


Jim

Jim, is the sun "climate change"? Last I checked, it "warms" the earth. How is the Paris Accord going to address the issue of the sun?

When talking about "the climate" ... You didn't say which one. The earth has millions of climates.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-06-2017 20:12
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: "The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.


Jim

Jim, is the sun "climate change"? Last I checked, it "warms" the earth. How is the Paris Accord going to address the issue of the sun?

When talking about "the climate" ... You didn't say which one. The earth has millions of climates.


.


And you're wishing to be argumentative.
>> When talking about "the climate" ... You didn't say which one. The earth has millions of climates. <<

What happened to "vanilla climate change" ? Why I doubt you have anything worth while to discuss.


Jim
15-06-2017 20:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: "The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.


Jim

Jim, is the sun "climate change"? Last I checked, it "warms" the earth. How is the Paris Accord going to address the issue of the sun?

When talking about "the climate" ... You didn't say which one. The earth has millions of climates.


.


And you're wishing to be argumentative.
>> When talking about "the climate" ... You didn't say which one. The earth has millions of climates. <<

What happened to "vanilla climate change" ? Why I doubt you have anything worth while to discuss.


Jim

Jim, why suddenly become EVASIVE? Obviously something I wrote threatened you.

My simple questions were earnest and straightforward. There is no reason to become defensive and EVASIVE ... unless you feel threatened, of course.

One more time:

Is the sun "climate change"? Last I checked, it "warms" the earth, and you stated that was YOUR qualifier.

When talking about "the climate" ... you did NOT say which one. The earth does have millions of climates. Am I the first to tell you this?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-06-2017 22:00
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/


This is an interesting paper. But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Recently in Science News there was an article on a paper that suggests that plate tectonics and wandering continents is a sign of a juvenile planet. The Earth's mantle appears to be cooling three times more rapidly than heretofore believed. And with it plate tectonics appears to be slowing and becoming less predictable due to that. For instance - Pacific coast plates are almost twice their usual period overdue.

So,they say, tectonics and continental motion may shortly end. Though what "shortly" is, your guess is as good as mine.


Wake,
>> This is an interesting paper. But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. <<

It isn't. It is something that has been over looked and as we all know heat rises. That scientists would state that heated water stays on the sea floor would need to explain how thermodymics allows for that to happen.
The article did mention
>> In addition, farther up under the north pole, scientists discovered an eruption of intense seismic activity beginning in Gakkel Ridge in January of 1999 and continuing for seven months. That happens to be about the time Arctic ice extent took a nosedive, stabilizing after 2007. <<

But since you say that ice core research is to be dismissed there really is nothing that can be discussed with you. You seem to want to debunk science and replace it with an opinion which has been poorly thought out if given any thought at all.
Jim


Jim, if we all know that heat rises why does ice float? In fact, the highest density of liquid water is 4 degrees C. This is why ice doesn't melt until 4 degrees. There are many asymmetries in the real world.

Volcanic activity which just accidentally was recorded by a passing submarine showed that it was a undersea volcano. These in general do not generate warm water but instead steam. Depending on the depth of the ridge it may or may not have warmed the water on it's escape to the surface.

And again let me remind you that regardless, the TOTAL difference in density of liquid water is only slightly more than 4% in pure water. It is less difference than this in water with other materials dissolved in it. This difference in density is so low that normal ocean current could override the natural tendencies of warmer water to rise.

Gakkel Ridge is directly under the Arctic Ocean ice flow and it isn't surprising that heat from there would cause ice to melt. But this is 17 years later and we are still seeing reductions in the ice. Doesn't that suggest to you that Gakkel Ridge wasn't the cause or at least the major cause of that?

You seem to hold great anger if anyone questions your world view. You tell me I should learn geology without ever managing to tell anyone why geology would be of benefit in these cases. You cannot fake me out by throwing out claims without backing them with some sort of logic. While you're claiming that this is all my "opinion" then you shouldn't have any problem showing us the real science.
16-06-2017 00:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: Jim, if we all know that heat rises why does ice float? In fact, the highest density of liquid water is 4 degrees C. This is why ice doesn't melt until 4 degrees. There are many asymmetries in the real world.

You have got to be kidding. You are truly a scientifically illiterate moron.

Haven't you ever considered why zero degrees Celsius is the melting point of ice / freezing point of liquid water?


If you want to contest Jim's claim that heat only rises then just recommend he get a frying pan searing hot and then rest it on top of his head. As long as he is under the pan he should be fine, yes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-06-2017 03:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Wake, what is "climate change? Is it any sort of change whatsoever?

If I'm looking at various changes, how can I tell which ones are "climate" changes and which ones are just plain vanilla changes?


.


"The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.


Jim

You never answered the question.

What is 'climate change'? Define it without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2017 16:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Wake, what is "climate change? Is it any sort of change whatsoever?

If I'm looking at various changes, how can I tell which ones are "climate" changes and which ones are just plain vanilla changes?


.


"The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.


Jim

You never answered the question.

What is 'climate change'? Define it without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.


I don't have to answer the question. This thread was about El Nino and Deep Faults. He was off topic when he asked that and you are wrong for saying I have to answer to him. By him taking the thread off topic you should have asked him to stay on topic and discuss how deep faults in the sea floor can allow for surface warming. Instead you want me to answer to someone who is being argumentative because he has not researched anything to do with our planets environment. After all, about all he posts is the Stefan-Boltzman equation and that's not discussing climate change. That's discussing how the amount of energy in excess of the gravitational effect on matter's ability to store heat determines it's emissivity or radiance. But that's only an opinion.
If he wants someone's opinion for "What's Your Definition Of Climate Change ?" then maybe he should start a thread, that's what the forum is for.



Jim

p.s., you staying off the weed ? It helps to have a clear head
when discussing complex topics.
16-06-2017 16:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: I don't have to answer the question. This thread was about El Nino and Deep Faults. He was off topic .

Jim, the topic was El Nino and Deep faults driving "climate change." I simply asked Wake what that meant.

Of course you don't have to answer the question, but it would be helpful.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-06-2017 16:37
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Wake, what is "climate change? Is it any sort of change whatsoever?

If I'm looking at various changes, how can I tell which ones are "climate" changes and which ones are just plain vanilla changes?
.


"The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.
Jim

You never answered the question.

What is 'climate change'? Define it without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.


I don't have to answer the question. This thread was about El Nino and Deep Faults. He was off topic when he asked that and you are wrong for saying I have to answer to him. By him taking the thread off topic you should have asked him to stay on topic and discuss how deep faults in the sea floor can allow for surface warming. Instead you want me to answer to someone who is being argumentative because he has not researched anything to do with our planets environment. After all, about all he posts is the Stefan-Boltzman equation and that's not discussing climate change. That's discussing how the amount of energy in excess of the gravitational effect on matter's ability to store heat determines it's emissivity or radiance. But that's only an opinion.
If he wants someone's opinion for "What's Your Definition Of Climate Change ?" then maybe he should start a thread, that's what the forum is for.
Jim

p.s., you staying off the weed ? It helps to have a clear head
when discussing complex topics.


James, do not even respond to these two weeds. I don't even bother reading anything they post. I think the lunatic things that they are posting is part of what is giving you the idea that I'm trying to simply disprove someone else instead of getting to the bottom of what is truly happening.

What we can see is that there isn't a "positive feedback" mechanism of any sort. And while the predictions were for some 4+ degrees in this time it has been about 1 degree even by their terms.

BTW - there was also a short term volcanic eruption underwater in Antarctica a couple of years ago. This melted ice in a relatively small area which was then used as proof that Antarctica was melting because of AGW.

Small short term events can have long term consequences but you have to have a hell of a lot of proof to support it.
16-06-2017 22:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: James, do not even respond to these two weeds.

We'll, somebody is certainly insecure in his position.


Wake wrote: ... that I'm trying to simply disprove someone else instead of getting to the bottom of what is truly happening.

Except that you become entirely EVASIVE whenever you are asked to clarify / specify whatever it is that is presumably "truly happening."

It's a trivial matter to gibber about the completely unspecified..

Wake wrote: And while the predictions were for some 4+ degrees in this time it has been about 1 degree even by their terms.

What is the value in belaboring guesses that were proven incorrect? Theyt occur every day, all around the world, and they are not of value.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-06-2017 15:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716160652.htm
18-06-2017 16:01
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716160652.htm


So it hasn't yet but it's bound to any minute now.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread

By the way - you might want to learn how to use the editing functions of the forum so that you can make your references clickable.
18-06-2017 17:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716160652.htm


So it hasn't yet but it's bound to any minute now.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread

By the way - you might want to learn how to use the editing functions of the forum so that you can make your references clickable.


I read your link and wonder what point that contributor was trying to make. He kept referring to one kid and doom. You obviously have no understanding of what my own concern is about. This might be because you are dismissive of ice core research and what it suggests.


Jim
18-06-2017 18:12
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716160652.htm


So it hasn't yet but it's bound to any minute now.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread

By the way - you might want to learn how to use the editing functions of the forum so that you can make your references clickable.


I read your link and wonder what point that contributor was trying to make. He kept referring to one kid and doom. You obviously have no understanding of what my own concern is about. This might be because you are dismissive of ice core research and what it suggests.
Jim


Jim, what I am concerned about is that you are an intelligent person and yet you are quoting articles that make claims such as "well we know there's heating. We can't measure any but it's bound to do so sometime soon."

Come on. That isn't a study. That isn't a reasonable paper.

You're a whole lot better than that.
18-06-2017 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Wake, what is "climate change? Is it any sort of change whatsoever?

If I'm looking at various changes, how can I tell which ones are "climate" changes and which ones are just plain vanilla changes?


.


"The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.


Jim

You never answered the question.

What is 'climate change'? Define it without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.


I don't have to answer the question.

True, you don't. But since you can't define 'climate change', you automatically make it a religion. Science is not made up of undefined theories.
James_ wrote:
This thread was about El Nino and Deep Faults. He was off topic when he asked that and you are wrong for saying I have to answer to him. By him taking the thread off topic you should have asked him to stay on topic and discuss how deep faults in the sea floor can allow for surface warming.

Welcome to your new paradox. First you say it's not about 'climate change', then you say it is. Which is it dude? Isn't 'surface warming' a 'climate change' to you?

Perhaps you should try to define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.

James_ wrote:
Instead you want me to answer to someone who is being argumentative because he has not researched anything to do with our planets environment.

Define the 'planet environment'. Just what exactly is it?
James_ wrote:
After all, about all he posts is the Stefan-Boltzman equation and that's not discussing climate change. That's discussing how the amount of energy in excess of the gravitational effect on matter's ability to store heat determines it's emissivity or radiance.

Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by introducing a term for gravity, specific heat, removing the term for temperature and redesignating a constant as a variable.

This equation is actually a rather simple one:
radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

See? No gravity. No specific heat value. Emissivity is treated as a constant.

James_ wrote:
But that's only an opinion.

No, that's redefining a equation to something of your own concoction and naming it the 'Stefan-Boltzmann law'.
James_ wrote:
If he wants someone's opinion for "What's Your Definition Of Climate Change ?" then maybe he should start a thread, that's what the forum is for.

A definition is not an opinion. It is a definition. Obviously you can't come up with one, thus relegating 'climate change' to a religion. A religion about an event you can't even specify.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2017 19:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: But it is speaking in terms of millions of years. I have a real problem suggesting that this is the cause of climate change in the short run though I am sure that this is certainly part of a cause of climate variability. That does appear to be what the paper is saying.

Wake, what is "climate change? Is it any sort of change whatsoever?

If I'm looking at various changes, how can I tell which ones are "climate" changes and which ones are just plain vanilla changes?
.


"The Man",
I think something that warms our planet is not vanilla. And yet if changes in the climate are dismissed without consideration because of such an ignorant attitude towards the subject, difficult to consider the cause and effect of observed change.
Jim

You never answered the question.

What is 'climate change'? Define it without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.


I don't have to answer the question. This thread was about El Nino and Deep Faults. He was off topic when he asked that and you are wrong for saying I have to answer to him. By him taking the thread off topic you should have asked him to stay on topic and discuss how deep faults in the sea floor can allow for surface warming. Instead you want me to answer to someone who is being argumentative because he has not researched anything to do with our planets environment. After all, about all he posts is the Stefan-Boltzman equation and that's not discussing climate change. That's discussing how the amount of energy in excess of the gravitational effect on matter's ability to store heat determines it's emissivity or radiance. But that's only an opinion.
If he wants someone's opinion for "What's Your Definition Of Climate Change ?" then maybe he should start a thread, that's what the forum is for.
Jim

p.s., you staying off the weed ? It helps to have a clear head
when discussing complex topics.


James, do not even respond to these two weeds. I don't even bother reading anything they post.

You obviously do, liar. You are commenting on it!
Wake wrote:
I think the lunatic things that they are posting is part of what is giving you the idea that I'm trying to simply disprove someone else instead of getting to the bottom of what is truly happening.
What is truly happening? You are simply making religious arguments against another from a different religion.
Wake wrote:
What we can see is that there isn't a "positive feedback" mechanism of any sort. And while the predictions were for some 4+ degrees in this time it has been about 1 degree even by their terms.

Your predictions might as well be from chicken entrails. What else to these marvelous guts tell you?
Wake wrote:
BTW - there was also a short term volcanic eruption underwater in Antarctica a couple of years ago. This melted ice in a relatively small area which was then used as proof that Antarctica was melting because of AGW.

Small short term events can have long term consequences but you have to have a hell of a lot of proof to support it.

You have no idea what a 'proof' is.

Holy Links are not 'proof'.
Assertions are not 'proof'.
Supporting evidence is not 'proof'.
Consensus is not 'proof'.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2017 00:33
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
@IBdaMANN and into the night,
The atmospheric experiment I've been pursuing doesn't involve the Chapman cycle. This means it doesn't matter to me.
Still the 2 of you are promoting your own cult. Reverse psychology. Everything in science the 2 of you refer to as holy. All you two seem to be doing is trying to brainwash me. I think that's all you have.

By the way, the atmospheric forcing experiment is to see if co2 * h2o > ch2o and o2 in the upper ttroposphere. Not sure why that's a problem.
Edited on 19-06-2017 00:51
19-06-2017 04:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: By the way, the atmospheric forcing experiment is to see if co2 * h2o > ch2o and o2 in the upper ttroposphere. Not sure why that's a problem.


I think you are making this WAY too difficult.

Just ask any bartender about H2O + CO2.



Many bartenders have it available for demonstration.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2017 06:44
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: By the way, the atmospheric forcing experiment is to see if co2 * h2o > ch2o and o2 in the upper ttroposphere. Not sure why that's a problem.


I think you are making this WAY too difficult.

Just ask any bartender about H2O + CO2.



Many bartenders have it available for demonstration.




.


IBdaMANN,
You just showed me my problem. I'm willing to take the time to work at things while most Americans believe if it doesn't come easy then it's not worth the effort.

THANK YOU ! THANK YOU !


@into the night (into the dark ages), there was a time books were considered bad. I can think for myself just fine. It's you that is afraid of complex subjects. Probably best for me not to post in here. It's too difficult to try and discuss something because of 3 people. Right Wake ?
19-06-2017 06:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: By the way, the atmospheric forcing experiment is to see if co2 * h2o > ch2o and o2 in the upper ttroposphere. Not sure why that's a problem.


I think you are making this WAY too difficult.

Just ask any bartender about H2O + CO2.



Many bartenders have it available for demonstration.




.


IBdaMANN,
You just showed me my problem. I'm willing to take the time to work at things while most Americans believe if it doesn't come easy then it's not worth the effort.

THANK YOU ! THANK YOU !


@into the night (into the dark ages), there was a time books were considered bad.
Perhaps we've identified your problem. You never learned to read.
James_ wrote:
I can think for myself just fine.
You have not shown it.
James_ wrote:
It's you that is afraid of complex subjects.
I deal with complexity that would make your head spin. Fortunately for you, there is nothing complex about the Chapman cycle.
James_ wrote:
Probably best for me not to post in here. It's too difficult to try and discuss something because of 3 people. Right Wake ?

Gonna run and hide in the kiddie pool eh? Have fun.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Climate change hoax disproven19-06-2017 13:31
SpaceShot76
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Many of you may or may not know of Steve Goddard or Ivar Giaever. The information they provide very simply and quite eloquently disporves the notion of a warming earth. Proof shown here in a 20 minute video put together show deception by Noaa and Nasa to name a couple. If you are interested in the truth my reccomendation is to watch this video, most of the information was collected over a 10 year period by Steve Goddard where he takes various newspaper articles and scientific journals of past and overlays the charts to the current charts given to us.

https://youtu.be/lVodjhoP5No
19-06-2017 14:54
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
SpaceShot76 wrote:
Many of you may or may not know of Steve Goddard or Ivar Giaever. The information they provide very simply and quite eloquently disporves the notion of a warming earth. Proof shown here in a 20 minute video put together show deception by Noaa and Nasa to name a couple. If you are interested in the truth my reccomendation is to watch this video, most of the information was collected over a 10 year period by Steve Goddard where he takes various newspaper articles and scientific journals of past and overlays the charts to the current charts given to us.

https://youtu.be/lVodjhoP5No


SS76,
I started watching your video and I think data has been corrupted. I think the heat from geologic activity on the sea floor has been credited to CO2 warming.
And since everyone misses what my concern is it is this. I believe that the natural cycle of warming and cooling on our planet revolves around geologic activity on the sea floor. The amount of ozone in the stratosphere might be a factor but am not sure on this.
As far as geologic activity goes, as glaciers in the Arctic melt more heat is released from the sea floor. Are we releasing enough heat in the northern hemisphere to effect this cycle ? I don't think research has answered that question yet.

@Into the Dark Ages; you wrote;
>> Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by introducing a term for gravity, specific heat, removing the term for temperature and redesignating a constant as a variable.

This equation is actually a rather simple one:
radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

See? No gravity. No specific heat value. Emissivity is treated as a constant. <<

And as CO2 levels increase and O2 levels decrease the composition of our atmosphere changes. This makes our atmosphere a variable.

I think it funny that you would attack me personally when you are the monitor in the forum. As far as the atmospheric forcing experiment goes, that is in the lower tropopause and below while the Chapman cycle is in the stratosphere. I have let Dr. Guzman know that if he is able to try the experiment and it is successful I will not venture into other parts of Atmospheric Chemistry because I do not have a Ph.D. like he does. since I am not challenging the Chapman cycle and the experiment that I am pursuing does not involve it I see no reason to be distracted by something that is at this time not a factor in what I am pursuing.
@Wake, as Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/) discusses in the link I posted about climate ripples. I believe that geologic activity on the sea floor can account for this. I believe his opinion is quite accurate and something I found helps me to make sense of what I believe. And it is his posting that has gotten me to consider waste heat as a possible concern when effecting the natural cycle of warming and cooling on our planet. And this is where if the atmospheric forcing experiment proves successful then I could be an advocate for both atmospheric and oceanic/geologic research.


Jim
Edited on 19-06-2017 14:57
19-06-2017 16:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: As far as geologic activity goes, as glaciers in the Arctic melt more heat is released from the sea floor.

Your theory is a bit strange; I don't think you have thought it through.

Scientists don't use the word "heat" in their models. If you find someone using "heat" in the sense you are, it is a strong indicator that s/he doesn't know what s/he is talking about.

When you use the word "heat" what do you believe you mean?

How do you believe the ocean floor can trap "heat" and be in control of when it is "released?

Wouldn't the cold ocean water instantly suck any "heat" from the ocean floor?

Additionally, you truly appear to be confused about the whole cause-effect concept. You are claiming that ice melting is the cause of greater "heat" generation. Don't you mean the other way around?

James_ wrote: Are we releasing enough heat in the northern hemisphere to effect this cycle ?.

Wait a minute. "We"? You were quite clear that the ocean floor is in control of that. What do you mean by "we"?

James_ wrote: And as CO2 levels increase and O2 levels decrease the composition of our atmosphere changes. This makes our atmosphere a variable.

Sure, the atmosphere is variable ... and so is the number of bicentennial quarters in your collection. Neither are factors in the earth's average global temperature.

James_ wrote: I think it funny that you would attack me personally when you are the monitor in the forum.

Jep Branner controls this forum.

James_ wrote: I have let Dr. Guzman know that if he is able to try the experiment and it is successful I will not venture into other parts of Atmospheric Chemistry because I do not have a Ph.D. like he does.

No credentials are ever required to either develop science models or to apply the scientific method.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2017 17:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
[quote]SpaceShot76 wrote:
Many of you may or may not know of Steve Goddard or Ivar Giaever. The information they provide very simply and quite eloquently disporves the notion of a warming earth. Proof shown here in a 20 minute video put together show deception by Noaa and Nasa to name a couple. If you are interested in the truth my reccomendation is to watch this video, most of the information was collected over a 10 year period by Steve Goddard where he takes various newspaper articles and scientific journals of past and overlays the charts to the current charts given to us.

https://youtu.be/lVodjhoP5No


SS76,
I started watching your video and I think data has been corrupted. I think the heat from geologic activity on the sea floor has been credited to CO2 warming.
And since everyone misses what my concern is it is this. I believe that the natural cycle of warming and cooling on our planet revolves around geologic activity on the sea floor. The amount of ozone in the stratosphere might be a factor but am not sure on this.
As far as geologic activity goes, as glaciers in the Arctic melt more heat is released from the sea floor. Are we releasing enough heat in the northern hemisphere to effect this cycle ? I don't think research has answered that question yet.

@Into the Dark Ages; you wrote;
>> Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by introducing a term for gravity, specific heat, removing the term for temperature and redesignating a constant as a variable.

This equation is actually a rather simple one:
radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

See? No gravity. No specific heat value. Emissivity is treated as a constant. <<

And as CO2 levels increase and O2 levels decrease the composition of our atmosphere changes. This makes our atmosphere a variable.
James_ wrote:
I think it funny that you would attack me personally when you are the monitor in the forum.
I am not the monitor in the forum.
James_ wrote:
As far as the atmospheric forcing experiment goes, that is in the lower tropopause and below while the Chapman cycle is in the stratosphere.
There is no forcing of anything. There is nothing magick about the tropopause.
James_ wrote:
I have let Dr. Guzman know that if he is able to try the experiment and it is successful I will not venture into other parts of Atmospheric Chemistry because I do not have a Ph.D. like he does. since I am not challenging the Chapman cycle and the experiment that I am pursuing does not involve it I see no reason to be distracted by something that is at this time not a factor in what I am pursuing.

First, you discarded the Chapman cycle completely. If that's not challenging it, what is??

I suggest you study how to make ozone from oxygen. It really is quite easy. All you have to do is take oxygen, and shove energy into it. It doesn't matter how...UV, heat, electrical discharge, etc. Ozone is an unstable molecule. It will naturally decompose back into oxygen on its own.

Maybe you should look up how smog forms.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2017 18:51
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
SpaceShot76 wrote:
Many of you may or may not know of Steve Goddard or Ivar Giaever. The information they provide very simply and quite eloquently disporves the notion of a warming earth. Proof shown here in a 20 minute video put together show deception by Noaa and Nasa to name a couple. If you are interested in the truth my reccomendation is to watch this video, most of the information was collected over a 10 year period by Steve Goddard where he takes various newspaper articles and scientific journals of past and overlays the charts to the current charts given to us.

https://youtu.be/lVodjhoP5No


SS76,
I started watching your video and I think data has been corrupted. I think the heat from geologic activity on the sea floor has been credited to CO2 warming.
And since everyone misses what my concern is it is this. I believe that the natural cycle of warming and cooling on our planet revolves around geologic activity on the sea floor. The amount of ozone in the stratosphere might be a factor but am not sure on this.
As far as geologic activity goes, as glaciers in the Arctic melt more heat is released from the sea floor. Are we releasing enough heat in the northern hemisphere to effect this cycle ? I don't think research has answered that question yet.

@Into the Dark Ages; you wrote;
>> Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by introducing a term for gravity, specific heat, removing the term for temperature and redesignating a constant as a variable.

This equation is actually a rather simple one:
radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

See? No gravity. No specific heat value. Emissivity is treated as a constant. <<

And as CO2 levels increase and O2 levels decrease the composition of our atmosphere changes. This makes our atmosphere a variable.

I think it funny that you would attack me personally when you are the monitor in the forum. As far as the atmospheric forcing experiment goes, that is in the lower tropopause and below while the Chapman cycle is in the stratosphere. I have let Dr. Guzman know that if he is able to try the experiment and it is successful I will not venture into other parts of Atmospheric Chemistry because I do not have a Ph.D. like he does. since I am not challenging the Chapman cycle and the experiment that I am pursuing does not involve it I see no reason to be distracted by something that is at this time not a factor in what I am pursuing.
@Wake, as Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/) discusses in the link I posted about climate ripples. I believe that geologic activity on the sea floor can account for this. I believe his opinion is quite accurate and something I found helps me to make sense of what I believe. And it is his posting that has gotten me to consider waste heat as a possible concern when effecting the natural cycle of warming and cooling on our planet. And this is where if the atmospheric forcing experiment proves successful then I could be an advocate for both atmospheric and oceanic/geologic research.


Jim


At what point in your imagination did you see a personal attack on you by SpaceShot76. This leads me to understand where my "attacks" on you are coming from.
20-06-2017 00:23
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
@All,
When you read Into the Dark Ages reply to me, where it says James_ wrote in the colored box I also wrote what's up above where I explain that our atmosphere is a variable because co2 and o2 levels are changing..
Then when Wake said I was attacking SS76 I wasn't Both SS76 and myself believe data has been corrupted. We might have different reasons for believing that and until more is made known it is just as likely that he can be right.
As for Wake, not sure if he has an opinion about climate change.
20-06-2017 00:47
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
@All,
When you read Into the Dark Ages reply to me, where it says James_ wrote in the colored box I also wrote what's up above where I explain that our atmosphere is a variable because co2 and o2 levels are changing..
Then when Wake said I was attacking SS76 I wasn't Both SS76 and myself believe data has been corrupted. We might have different reasons for believing that and until more is made known it is just as likely that he can be right.
As for Wake, not sure if he has an opinion about climate change.


If you don't know what my opinion is after all this time I have to wonder where your mind has been while reading my discussions.

I finally got what you meant when you used the name "Into The Dark Ages". I assumed you were still speaking to SS76. So pardon my mistake and I suggest you take my original advice and totally ignore him, and the other two whose sole purpose is to pretend they know something.

"Chief Crazyass" doesn't understand that he has a limited dataset so his claims about reduced Arctic ice coverage are meaningless.

"Into the Nightmare" says, "No specific heat value." in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since his intellectual research hasn't turned up a definition of "radiance" yet.

"IBnoManAtAll" tells us "there is no such thing as a "Global Climate.""

Are these the people you would argue with?

You and I have disagreements about your ideas of how something that occurred 17 years ago for 7 months has long term repercussions on the entire climate.

We also disagree about the reaction of seawater around lava. You haven't learned yet that water can have a phase change that uses energy but doesn't heat the resulting gas. Or that that resulting gas phase of water can simply rise to the top of the water and melt it's way through NOT because as steam it's hot but because the water was hot before it became steam.

You are trying to learn and I applaud that. But don't believe that if you learn a word you have the dictionary down pat.
20-06-2017 02:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
When you read Into the Dark Ages reply to me, where it says James_ wrote in the colored box I also wrote what's up above where I explain that our atmosphere is a variable because co2 and o2 levels are changing..
Then when Wake said I was attacking SS76 I wasn't Both SS76 and myself believe data has been corrupted. We might have different reasons for believing that and until more is made known it is just as likely that he can be right.
As for Wake, not sure if he has an opinion about climate change.


If you don't know what my opinion is after all this time I have to wonder where your mind has been while reading my discussions.

I finally got what you meant when you used the name "Into The Dark Ages". I assumed you were still speaking to SS76. So pardon my mistake and I suggest you take my original advice and totally ignore him, and the other two whose sole purpose is to pretend they know something.
Well...it's nice to know you finally figured out what insults to make against who.
Wake wrote:
"Chief Crazyass" doesn't understand that he has a limited dataset so his claims about reduced Arctic ice coverage are meaningless.
He has no dataset. He makes stuff up.
Wake wrote:
"Into the Nightmare" says, "No specific heat value." in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since his intellectual research hasn't turned up a definition of "radiance" yet.
You COULD always look it up you know. It's not like the Stefan-Boltzmann law is a secret equation or anything. Hint: radiance does not have a specific heat.
Wake wrote:
"IBnoManAtAll" tells us "there is no such thing as a "Global Climate.""
There isn't. Why do you believe there is?
Wake wrote:
Are these the people you would argue with?

You can certainly try.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate El Nino and Deep Faults:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Deep Climate Change Lesson in Prisoner Puzzle5404-08-2017 16:56
Another crazy El Nino week1529-11-2015 12:00
Great Question (Re: El Nino)329-11-2015 02:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact