Remember me
▼ Content

GWP (Global Warming Potential)



Page 1 of 212>
GWP (Global Warming Potential)02-10-2017 15:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Understanding Global Warming Potentials
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space; they act like a blanket insulating the Earth. Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth's warming. Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

Chemical Formula: CO2
Global Warming Potential (100-year): 1
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide

Chemical Formula: CH4
Global Warming Potential (100-year): 25
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Chemical Formula: N2O
Global Warming Potential (100-year): 298
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Chemical Formula: HFCs, PFCs, NF3, SF6
Global Warming Potential (100-year):
HFCs: up to 14,800
PFCs: 7,390–12,200
NF3: 17,200
SF6: 22,800
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Overview of Greenhouse Gases
It states emissions and not the % of that gas's contribution to Global Warming
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
Attached image:


Edited on 02-10-2017 15:46
02-10-2017 16:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
It states;
GHG emissions are often measured in carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent. To convert emissions of a gas into CO2 equivalent, its emissions are multiplied by the gas's Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP takes into account the fact that many gases are more effective at warming Earth than CO2, per unit mass.

Still, at the end of the day the IPCC states that co2 is helping to preserve the ozone layer. At the same time they are predicting that co2 levels will continue rising which will around 2050 restore the ozone layer to pre - 1980 industrial levels.
What I would like to see is a documentary showing the earth itself without an ozone layer. Also is the 0.2° F. rise in temperature per decade the same amount of energy that our ozone layer is allowing to enter into our atmosphere because of ozone depletion ? Scientists are not saying.
Edited on 02-10-2017 16:40
02-10-2017 21:01
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer I will accept their conclusion that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.
02-10-2017 21:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
Understanding Global Warming Potentials

Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions.
James_ wrote:
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space;

You can't trap heat.
James_ wrote:
they act like a blanket insulating the Earth.

CO2 has similar heat conductivity as any other gas in the atmosphere. It is not an insulator.

Insulators work both ways. If there WAS a blanket around the Earth, the Earth would be COLDER, not warmer. The Magick Blanket argument is BS.
James_ wrote:
Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth's warming.

No gas can warm the Earth.
James_ wrote:
Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"),

The ability to emit and the ability to absorb are always the same. It is called emissivity.
James_ wrote:
and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").

These gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. They are not plutonium.
James_ wrote:
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases.

More BS numbers.
James_ wrote:
Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period.
...deleted Holy Links and References...


No gas warms the Earth. No gas is an energy source (unless you burn methane).


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2017 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2017 00:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.
03-10-2017 06:11
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.


Parrot doesn't sympathize with anyone. And if he is Native American then I'm going to reevaluate my understanding of Native Americans.

Of course, Parrot gets to say that you, or I, or anyone else that comes along keeps saying the same things ad nauseum, which forces him to respond with his favorite BS ad nauseum.

You can't win with a guy like that, because he doesn't possess the mental capacity to ever admit that he is wrong about anything. And he doesn't understand his own spiritual being, so there is no sense in appealing to that either. He doesn't care where this life leads him into the future.

He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
03-10-2017 14:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.


Parrot doesn't sympathize with anyone. And if he is Native American then I'm going to reevaluate my understanding of Native Americans.

Of course, Parrot gets to say that you, or I, or anyone else that comes along keeps saying the same things ad nauseum, which forces him to respond with his favorite BS ad nauseum.

You can't win with a guy like that, because he doesn't possess the mental capacity to ever admit that he is wrong about anything. And he doesn't understand his own spiritual being, so there is no sense in appealing to that either. He doesn't care where this life leads him into the future.

He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?


I think it goes more to his philosophy. He can only be validated by his falsifying another. It's a self destructive cycle. His beliefs do not allow him to be a part of something. If they allowed for that then his validation of self would come from his contribution and not from his retribution.

@GreenMan,
My experiment started out as a possible method for improving carbon capture.
I do have some specific concerns about global warming. It is possible that ozone depletion is allowing for more heat into the lower troposphere. If so then the increase in co2 and water vapor would increase the amount of energy in our atmosphere. An example of this is that it can be 95° F. in Jacksonville, Fl. with a humiture of 117° F. This demonstrates that the energy in our atmosphere can increase without the actual temperature having a significant rise.
What this can allow for is the average global temperature to remain low while the energy in our atmosphere increases. Litesong might have gotten it right when he/she said that when the oceans release energy then it takes time for the oceans to recharge. This would help to explain the hurricanes this year. It would be possible to research online to see if the severe weather around the Gulf of Mexico has a tendency to be cyclical. If so then tsunamis might also be the same in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Edited on 03-10-2017 15:04
03-10-2017 16:08
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.


Parrot doesn't sympathize with anyone. And if he is Native American then I'm going to reevaluate my understanding of Native Americans.

Of course, Parrot gets to say that you, or I, or anyone else that comes along keeps saying the same things ad nauseum, which forces him to respond with his favorite BS ad nauseum.

You can't win with a guy like that, because he doesn't possess the mental capacity to ever admit that he is wrong about anything. And he doesn't understand his own spiritual being, so there is no sense in appealing to that either. He doesn't care where this life leads him into the future.

He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?


I think it goes more to his philosophy. He can only be validated by his falsifying another. It's a self destructive cycle. His beliefs do not allow him to be a part of something. If they allowed for that then his validation of self would come from his contribution and not from his retribution.

@GreenMan,
My experiment started out as a possible method for improving carbon capture.
I do have some specific concerns about global warming. It is possible that ozone depletion is allowing for more heat into the lower troposphere. If so then the increase in co2 and water vapor would increase the amount of energy in our atmosphere. An example of this is that it can be 95° F. in Jacksonville, Fl. with a humiture of 117° F. This demonstrates that the energy in our atmosphere can increase without the actual temperature having a significant rise.
What this can allow for is the average global temperature to remain low while the energy in our atmosphere increases. Litesong might have gotten it right when he/she said that when the oceans release energy then it takes time for the oceans to recharge. This would help to explain the hurricanes this year. It would be possible to research online to see if the severe weather around the Gulf of Mexico has a tendency to be cyclical. If so then tsunamis might also be the same in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.


Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w
03-10-2017 17:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?
03-10-2017 18:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


"I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you."

"I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza."

"can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?"

"He can only be validated by his falsifying another."

"It's a self destructive cycle."

"Back to your cyber bullying I see."

So YOU can say bad things and spew insults to others and call it discussing science but no one else can, eh?

What a hypocrite.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2017 18:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
My experiment started out as a possible method for improving carbon capture.

Why would you want to capture carbon out of the air? It's cheaper to mine it or make charcoal yourself.
James_ wrote:
I do have some specific concerns about global warming.

Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. How specific of a concern can you have about something you can't define?
James_ wrote:
It is possible that ozone depletion is allowing for more heat into the lower troposphere.

The ozone is not being depleted. It doesn't heat the lower troposphere either. It's colder than the lower troposphere. You can't heat a warmer substance with a colder one.
James_ wrote:
If so then the increase in co2 and water vapor would increase the amount of energy in our atmosphere.

Not possible. Neither is a source of energy. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
James_ wrote:
An example of this is that it can be 95° F. in Jacksonville, Fl. with a humiture of 117° F.

This is not an example.
James_ wrote:
This demonstrates that the energy in our atmosphere can increase without the actual temperature having a significant rise.

No, it demonstrates that it is 95 deg F in Jacksonville, FL and that you don't understand what humidity is.
James_ wrote:
What this can allow for is the average global temperature to remain low while the energy in our atmosphere increases.

Adding energy to the atmosphere increases its temperature.
James_ wrote:
Litesong might have gotten it right when he/she said that when the oceans release energy then it takes time for the oceans to recharge.

It takes the same time to 'recharge' the ocean temperatures as it takes to 'discharge' them.We know what the specific heat of salt water is.
James_ wrote:
This would help to explain the hurricanes this year.

Your random buzzwords does not explain why a hurricane happens.
James_ wrote:
It would be possible to research online to see if the severe weather around the Gulf of Mexico has a tendency to be cyclical.

It isn't. Go look at the records.
James_ wrote:
If so then tsunamis might also be the same in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Non-sequitur.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2017 19:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


"I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you."

"I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza."

"can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?"

"He can only be validated by his falsifying another."

"It's a self destructive cycle."

"Back to your cyber bullying I see."

So YOU can say bad things and spew insults to others and call it discussing science but no one else can, eh?

What a hypocrite.


Coming from you that is a compliment.
03-10-2017 21:46
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


You as a grown man being "bullied" says a whole lot about you. And none of it is complimentary.

That was actual data and since it contradicted you I'm bullying you.

Between you and Greenman I guess you can solve the world's problems by watching it burn to the ground.

Too bad it won't.
03-10-2017 23:04
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


You as a grown man being "bullied" says a whole lot about you. And none of it is complimentary.

That was actual data and since it contradicted you I'm bullying you.

Between you and Greenman I guess you can solve the world's problems by watching it burn to the ground.

Too bad it won't.


You trying to keep up with ITN ? You make little if any sense. I know, you're twisting my words. You saw where I posted where the record level of CO2 is going to restore the ozone layer which will reflect more sunlight back into space thus actually helping our planet to cool.
This is why you said watching it burn to the ground which it won't do because by doing nothing the problem will resolve itself.
If my solution is feasible it might save some lives and property along the way. But you're thinking about giving and getting good post. It's like sex for you, isn't it ?
03-10-2017 23:09
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


You as a grown man being "bullied" says a whole lot about you. And none of it is complimentary.

That was actual data and since it contradicted you I'm bullying you.

Between you and Greenman I guess you can solve the world's problems by watching it burn to the ground.

Too bad it won't.


You trying to keep up with ITN ? You make little if any sense. I know, you're twisting my words. You saw where I posted where the record level of CO2 is going to restore the ozone layer which will reflect more sunlight back into space thus actually helping our planet to cool.
This is why you said watching it burn to the ground which it won't do because by doing nothing the problem will resolve itself.
If my solution is feasible it might save some lives and property along the way. But you're thinking about giving and getting good post. It's like sex for you, isn't it ?


You are little more than a dumbass in sheeps clothing. Maybe you can turn Greenman on. He appears to be dying and wants to take people with him so you and him ought to get alone fine.
04-10-2017 01:21
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


You as a grown man being "bullied" says a whole lot about you. And none of it is complimentary.

That was actual data and since it contradicted you I'm bullying you.

Between you and Greenman I guess you can solve the world's problems by watching it burn to the ground.

Too bad it won't.


You trying to keep up with ITN ? You make little if any sense. I know, you're twisting my words. You saw where I posted where the record level of CO2 is going to restore the ozone layer which will reflect more sunlight back into space thus actually helping our planet to cool.
This is why you said watching it burn to the ground which it won't do because by doing nothing the problem will resolve itself.
If my solution is feasible it might save some lives and property along the way. But you're thinking about giving and getting good post. It's like sex for you, isn't it ?


You are little more than a dumbass in sheeps clothing. Maybe you can turn Greenman on. He appears to be dying and wants to take people with him so you and him ought to get alone fine.


This is disappointing. I thought you could come up with a better retort than this. With GreenMan he might never have seen the scripture I posted to him. Maybe he'll consider it since it is in the Bible.
04-10-2017 01:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


You as a grown man being "bullied" says a whole lot about you. And none of it is complimentary.

That was actual data and since it contradicted you I'm bullying you.

Between you and Greenman I guess you can solve the world's problems by watching it burn to the ground.

Too bad it won't.


You trying to keep up with ITN ? You make little if any sense. I know, you're twisting my words. You saw where I posted where the record level of CO2 is going to restore the ozone layer which will reflect more sunlight back into space thus actually helping our planet to cool.

CO2 doesn't build or destroy the ozone layer. It doesn't affect the ozone layer at all.
James_ wrote:
This is why you said watching it burn to the ground which it won't do because by doing nothing the problem will resolve itself.

There is no problem to resolve.
James_ wrote:
If my solution is feasible it might save some lives and property along the way.

What lives and property are threatened?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2017 03:52
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.


Parrot doesn't sympathize with anyone. And if he is Native American then I'm going to reevaluate my understanding of Native Americans.

Of course, Parrot gets to say that you, or I, or anyone else that comes along keeps saying the same things ad nauseum, which forces him to respond with his favorite BS ad nauseum.

You can't win with a guy like that, because he doesn't possess the mental capacity to ever admit that he is wrong about anything. And he doesn't understand his own spiritual being, so there is no sense in appealing to that either. He doesn't care where this life leads him into the future.

He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?


I think it goes more to his philosophy. He can only be validated by his falsifying another. It's a self destructive cycle. His beliefs do not allow him to be a part of something. If they allowed for that then his validation of self would come from his contribution and not from his retribution.

@GreenMan,
My experiment started out as a possible method for improving carbon capture.
I do have some specific concerns about global warming. It is possible that ozone depletion is allowing for more heat into the lower troposphere. If so then the increase in co2 and water vapor would increase the amount of energy in our atmosphere. An example of this is that it can be 95° F. in Jacksonville, Fl. with a humiture of 117° F. This demonstrates that the energy in our atmosphere can increase without the actual temperature having a significant rise.
What this can allow for is the average global temperature to remain low while the energy in our atmosphere increases. Litesong might have gotten it right when he/she said that when the oceans release energy then it takes time for the oceans to recharge. This would help to explain the hurricanes this year. It would be possible to research online to see if the severe weather around the Gulf of Mexico has a tendency to be cyclical. If so then tsunamis might also be the same in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.


James, I think you are actually on to something there. It clicked when you mentioned the humiture. At first I didn't know what you meant, then it clicked, lol. It's what the heat feels like, because of the humidity. The air is the same temperature, but it feels hotter to a person.

That is energy, that a person is feeling. And it is the same thing that is eluding Parrot. What a person is actually feeling is their body's slight loss of cooling ability, due to the high humidity [sweat cant evaporate as well]. So a person's body gets warmer [without adding any more energy to the body's internal furnace].

The same thing happens to the planet. And as it gets warmer, so does the air. So it's capable of becoming a vicious cycle.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
04-10-2017 07:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
James, I think you are actually on to something there. It clicked when you mentioned the humiture. At first I didn't know what you meant, then it clicked, lol. It's what the heat feels like, because of the humidity. The air is the same temperature, but it feels hotter to a person.

That is energy, that a person is feeling.

No, that is the inability to sweat.
GreenMan wrote:
And it is the same thing that is eluding Parrot.

Nothing is eluding me.
GreenMan wrote:
What a person is actually feeling is their body's slight loss of cooling ability, due to the high humidity [sweat cant evaporate as well]. So a person's body gets warmer [without adding any more energy to the body's internal furnace].

Because they can't cool themselves as well by heating the air around them.
GreenMan wrote:
The same thing happens to the planet.

Planets don't sweat.
GreenMan wrote:
And as it gets warmer, so does the air.

Violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are still attempting to decrease entropy in a system.
GreenMan wrote:
So it's capable of becoming a vicious cycle.

No, you are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2017 14:58
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


You as a grown man being "bullied" says a whole lot about you. And none of it is complimentary.

That was actual data and since it contradicted you I'm bullying you.

Between you and Greenman I guess you can solve the world's problems by watching it burn to the ground.

Too bad it won't.


You trying to keep up with ITN ? You make little if any sense. I know, you're twisting my words. You saw where I posted where the record level of CO2 is going to restore the ozone layer which will reflect more sunlight back into space thus actually helping our planet to cool.
This is why you said watching it burn to the ground which it won't do because by doing nothing the problem will resolve itself.
If my solution is feasible it might save some lives and property along the way. But you're thinking about giving and getting good post. It's like sex for you, isn't it ?


You are little more than a dumbass in sheeps clothing. Maybe you can turn Greenman on. He appears to be dying and wants to take people with him so you and him ought to get alone fine.


This is disappointing. I thought you could come up with a better retort than this. With GreenMan he might never have seen the scripture I posted to him. Maybe he'll consider it since it is in the Bible.


It's funny that you cannot recognize greenman appearing as an angel of light.
10-10-2017 16:01
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
GreenMan wrote:
I think it goes more to his philosophy. He can only be validated by his falsifying another. It's a self destructive cycle. His beliefs do not allow him to be a part of something. If they allowed for that then his validation of self would come from his contribution and not from his retribution.

@GreenMan,
My experiment started out as a possible method for improving carbon capture.
I do have some specific concerns about global warming. It is possible that ozone depletion is allowing for more heat into the lower troposphere. If so then the increase in co2 and water vapor would increase the amount of energy in our atmosphere. An example of this is that it can be 95° F. in Jacksonville, Fl. with a humiture of 117° F. This demonstrates that the energy in our atmosphere can increase without the actual temperature having a significant rise.
What this can allow for is the average global temperature to remain low while the energy in our atmosphere increases. Litesong might have gotten it right when he/she said that when the oceans release energy then it takes time for the oceans to recharge. This would help to explain the hurricanes this year. It would be possible to research online to see if the severe weather around the Gulf of Mexico has a tendency to be cyclical. If so then tsunamis might also be the same in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.


James, I think you are actually on to something there. It clicked when you mentioned the humiture. At first I didn't know what you meant, then it clicked, lol. It's what the heat feels like, because of the humidity. The air is the same temperature, but it feels hotter to a person.

That is energy, that a person is feeling. And it is the same thing that is eluding Parrot. What a person is actually feeling is their body's slight loss of cooling ability, due to the high humidity [sweat cant evaporate as well]. So a person's body gets warmer [without adding any more energy to the body's internal furnace].

The same thing happens to the planet. And as it gets warmer, so does the air. So it's capable of becoming a vicious cycle.[/quote]

Of course that is what is wrong with nightmare. For reasons unknown to man-kind he has to be right no matter how wrong he is. And if you provide evidence in the form of strong data he will refer to it as a "holy link deleted". This is the actions of a crazy man.

When you talk that "humiture" you are only talking about it in the case where the temperature is high. You can also have very high humidity and cold temperatures. In this case you feel colder than the temperature would seem because the water content in the air absorbs your body temperature more rapidly.

So then you turn around and try to use this as a positive feedback mechanism. No such mechanism exists.
10-10-2017 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Of course that is what is wrong with nightmare. For reasons unknown to man-kind he has to be right no matter how wrong he is.

I'm not wrong. My support comes from the theories of thermodynamics and the theories of Max Planck.
Wake wrote:
And if you provide evidence in the form of strong data he will refer to it as a "holy link deleted".

I delete such links because they are useless gunk. They only indicate that you cannot think for yourself.
Wake wrote:
This is the actions of a crazy man.

Going to try psychobabble now?
Wake wrote:
When you talk that "humiture" you are only talking about it in the case where the temperature is high. You can also have very high humidity and cold temperatures. In this case you feel colder than the temperature would seem because the water content in the air absorbs your body temperature more rapidly.

This part is correct.

Water is more thermally conductive than dry air, even as a vapor.

When air temperature is warm, sweating doesn't work so well to cool you off. That is not energy. That hot air, as it approaches the skin temperature you, makes it that much more unpleasant.

Then air temperature is cold, it works in favor of cooling you more effectively, just when you don't want it.

Wake wrote:
So then you turn around and try to use this as a positive feedback mechanism. No such mechanism exists.


Humidity is not a feedback mechanism. If it was, anywhere near any large body of water would have destroyed the planet by now.


The Parrot Killer
10-10-2017 22:52
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I think it goes more to his philosophy. He can only be validated by his falsifying another. It's a self destructive cycle. His beliefs do not allow him to be a part of something. If they allowed for that then his validation of self would come from his contribution and not from his retribution.

@GreenMan,
My experiment started out as a possible method for improving carbon capture.
I do have some specific concerns about global warming. It is possible that ozone depletion is allowing for more heat into the lower troposphere. If so then the increase in co2 and water vapor would increase the amount of energy in our atmosphere. An example of this is that it can be 95° F. in Jacksonville, Fl. with a humiture of 117° F. This demonstrates that the energy in our atmosphere can increase without the actual temperature having a significant rise.
What this can allow for is the average global temperature to remain low while the energy in our atmosphere increases. Litesong might have gotten it right when he/she said that when the oceans release energy then it takes time for the oceans to recharge. This would help to explain the hurricanes this year. It would be possible to research online to see if the severe weather around the Gulf of Mexico has a tendency to be cyclical. If so then tsunamis might also be the same in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.


James, I think you are actually on to something there. It clicked when you mentioned the humiture. At first I didn't know what you meant, then it clicked, lol. It's what the heat feels like, because of the humidity. The air is the same temperature, but it feels hotter to a person.

That is energy, that a person is feeling. And it is the same thing that is eluding Parrot. What a person is actually feeling is their body's slight loss of cooling ability, due to the high humidity [sweat cant evaporate as well]. So a person's body gets warmer [without adding any more energy to the body's internal furnace].

The same thing happens to the planet. And as it gets warmer, so does the air. So it's capable of becoming a vicious cycle.


Of course that is what is wrong with nightmare. For reasons unknown to man-kind he has to be right no matter how wrong he is. And if you provide evidence in the form of strong data he will refer to it as a "holy link deleted". This is the actions of a crazy man.

When you talk that "humiture" you are only talking about it in the case where the temperature is high. You can also have very high humidity and cold temperatures. In this case you feel colder than the temperature would seem because the water content in the air absorbs your body temperature more rapidly.

So then you turn around and try to use this as a positive feedback mechanism. No such mechanism exists.[/quote]

Wake,
From some of what I've read I think that water vapor might have increased by about 4% over a couple of decades. I don't think they have all the why's and therefore's yet, just an observed increase at the moment.
It is possible that since CO2 is only 0.04% of our atmosphere that it's impact might be minimal. This is one reason why I am an advocate of more research.
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2
Edited on 10-10-2017 22:59
10-10-2017 23:35
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
From some of what I've read I think that water vapor might have increased by about 4% over a couple of decades. I don't think they have all the why's and therefore's yet, just an observed increase at the moment.
It is possible that since CO2 is only 0.04% of our atmosphere that it's impact might be minimal. This is one reason why I am an advocate of more research.
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


Look James - your first paragraph of your first posting was a good wording of the CLAIMS of the AGW True Believers.

This doesn't mean I think of you in that regard. I think you cannot bring yourself to believe that NASA and NOAA have been lying about this and continue to try to find mechanisms that would support them.

But you cannot. You continue to make off-kilter statements and then get angry when they are corrected. You are being bullied. That is not the way a grown man acts. So knock it off.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

There is an important statement in there: "I'm retired so I don't need to keep my mouth shut anymore."

Now it's time for you to face facts. NOAA and NASA were taken over by the environmentalists long ago. They have given nothing but packs of lies over the years.
11-10-2017 14:34
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
From some of what I've read I think that water vapor might have increased by about 4% over a couple of decades. I don't think they have all the why's and therefore's yet, just an observed increase at the moment.
It is possible that since CO2 is only 0.04% of our atmosphere that it's impact might be minimal. This is one reason why I am an advocate of more research.
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


Look James - your first paragraph of your first posting was a good wording of the CLAIMS of the AGW True Believers.

This doesn't mean I think of you in that regard. I think you cannot bring yourself to believe that NASA and NOAA have been lying about this and continue to try to find mechanisms that would support them.

But you cannot. You continue to make off-kilter statements and then get angry when they are corrected. You are being bullied. That is not the way a grown man acts. So knock it off.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

There is an important statement in there: "I'm retired so I don't need to keep my mouth shut anymore."

Now it's time for you to face facts. NOAA and NASA were taken over by the environmentalists long ago. They have given nothing but packs of lies over the years.


Wake,
I have my own work that I've been pursuing.
You say >> You are being bullied. That is not the way a grown man acts. So knock it off. <<


Jim
11-10-2017 14:58
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
James wrote:
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


James, You think this storm splitting around Lexington was some sort of heat island effect??
I'm not sure how that would work....seems it should be quite the opposite.
Also that storm looks rather unorganized. There's some deeper convection in there but overall looks like it's possibly getting choked off by it's own outflow....tough to say with only one picture.
11-10-2017 16:14
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


James, You think this storm splitting around Lexington was some sort of heat island effect??
I'm not sure how that would work....seems it should be quite the opposite.
Also that storm looks rather unorganized. There's some deeper convection in there but overall looks like it's possibly getting choked off by it's own outflow....tough to say with only one picture.


That storm is so far north that all you're seeing is the normal release of energy from the warmest regions. This occurs when so much energy has been released that it can no longer hold together by pushing all the energy into the center by rotating. This is perfectly normal weather,
12-10-2017 14:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


James, You think this storm splitting around Lexington was some sort of heat island effect??
I'm not sure how that would work....seems it should be quite the opposite.
Also that storm looks rather unorganized. There's some deeper convection in there but overall looks like it's possibly getting choked off by it's own outflow....tough to say with only one picture.


GasGuzzler,
I do think it has something to do with the heat island effect. One of the reasons I mentioned this is because it was something that Wake used to mention.
When I lived in Lawrenceville, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, Ga. back in 2000 a severe thunderstorm was heading towards Atlanta. At the time Atlanta (Georgia) was in a 5 year old drought. They talked about how badly needed rain was coming to Atlanta. That storm split into 2 and one part went north of Atlanta while the other part went south of Atlanta. Once the storm was east of Atlanta it reformed into one storm again.
With Lexington, the direction the storm came from has a city called Nicholasville. It's population is over 300,000 as is Lexington's.
The areas where the storm was most intense has much less urbanization.
12-10-2017 19:50
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


James, You think this storm splitting around Lexington was some sort of heat island effect??
I'm not sure how that would work....seems it should be quite the opposite.
Also that storm looks rather unorganized. There's some deeper convection in there but overall looks like it's possibly getting choked off by it's own outflow....tough to say with only one picture.


GasGuzzler,
I do think it has something to do with the heat island effect. One of the reasons I mentioned this is because it was something that Wake used to mention.
When I lived in Lawrenceville, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, Ga. back in 2000 a severe thunderstorm was heading towards Atlanta. At the time Atlanta (Georgia) was in a 5 year old drought. They talked about how badly needed rain was coming to Atlanta. That storm split into 2 and one part went north of Atlanta while the other part went south of Atlanta. Once the storm was east of Atlanta it reformed into one storm again.
With Lexington, the direction the storm came from has a city called Nicholasville. It's population is over 300,000 as is Lexington's.
The areas where the storm was most intense has much less urbanization.

Sure James, storms split and merge all the time. Next chance of sever weather in the Midwest is on Saturday. Pull up a radar, loop it and just stare at it. Storms form, mature, dissipate and relocate...constantly. It takes near perfect conditions for a single cell to remain constant for 50+ miles....especially outside the southern/western plains.
I'm happy to consider your reasoning for a heat Island killing a storm, I just haven't heard one yet.
Edited on 12-10-2017 20:35
12-10-2017 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:

Wake,
I have my own work that I've been pursuing.
You say >> You are being bullied. That is not the way a grown man acts. So knock it off. <<


Jim


Did you know there are grown men and women that are bullies?

Did you know there are grown men and women that are bullied by such?

Did you know the Church of Global Warming tries to bully people into joining the Church?

Did you know the Church of Global Warming tries to bully people into paying for the Church?

Did you know that governments often try to do the same thing?

Did you know that many bullies are cowards?


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2017 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


James, You think this storm splitting around Lexington was some sort of heat island effect??
I'm not sure how that would work....seems it should be quite the opposite.
Also that storm looks rather unorganized. There's some deeper convection in there but overall looks like it's possibly getting choked off by it's own outflow....tough to say with only one picture.


GasGuzzler,
I do think it has something to do with the heat island effect. One of the reasons I mentioned this is because it was something that Wake used to mention.
When I lived in Lawrenceville, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, Ga. back in 2000 a severe thunderstorm was heading towards Atlanta. At the time Atlanta (Georgia) was in a 5 year old drought. They talked about how badly needed rain was coming to Atlanta. That storm split into 2 and one part went north of Atlanta while the other part went south of Atlanta. Once the storm was east of Atlanta it reformed into one storm again.
With Lexington, the direction the storm came from has a city called Nicholasville. It's population is over 300,000 as is Lexington's.
The areas where the storm was most intense has much less urbanization.

Sure James, storms split and merge all the time. Next chance of sever weather in the Midwest is on Saturday. Pull up a radar, loop it and just stare at it. Storms form, mature, dissipate and relocate...constantly. It takes near perfect conditions for a single cell to remain constant for 50+ miles....especially outside the southern/western plains.
I'm happy to consider your reasoning for a heat Island killing a storm, I just haven't heard one yet.


Never heard of one either. Storms actually form conditions that destroy themselves. That is why you never see a storm cell last very long. It's own rain brings it down. Until that time, the thing can be a brute.

Things like hurricanes are so large it takes longer for them to destroy themselves. They are also more of a collection of storms, whirling around a single point. The storms within the storm come and go.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2017 22:17
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
I was going to post a picture of the heat island effect from where I live. A long thunderstorm split into 2 when it got near the metropolitan area that I live in.
It wouldn't load but you can see the storms surrounding Lexington. The storm is moving from S.W. to N.E. If you check a map (google?) you'll see Lexington sits where the skies are clear west of I-75 and below I-64.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dORNLqXCibyBu2pi2


James, You think this storm splitting around Lexington was some sort of heat island effect??
I'm not sure how that would work....seems it should be quite the opposite.
Also that storm looks rather unorganized. There's some deeper convection in there but overall looks like it's possibly getting choked off by it's own outflow....tough to say with only one picture.


GasGuzzler,
I do think it has something to do with the heat island effect. One of the reasons I mentioned this is because it was something that Wake used to mention.
When I lived in Lawrenceville, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, Ga. back in 2000 a severe thunderstorm was heading towards Atlanta. At the time Atlanta (Georgia) was in a 5 year old drought. They talked about how badly needed rain was coming to Atlanta. That storm split into 2 and one part went north of Atlanta while the other part went south of Atlanta. Once the storm was east of Atlanta it reformed into one storm again.
With Lexington, the direction the storm came from has a city called Nicholasville. It's population is over 300,000 as is Lexington's.
The areas where the storm was most intense has much less urbanization.

Sure James, storms split and merge all the time. Next chance of sever weather in the Midwest is on Saturday. Pulled up a radar and just stare at it. Storms form, mature, dissipate and relocate...constantly. It takes near perfect conditions for a single cell to remain constant for 50+ miles....especially outside the southern/western plains.
I'm happy to consider your reasoning for a heat Island killing a storm though, I just haven't heard one yet.


Most people simply have no feeling for the amount of power in something as workaday as a rain storm. The energy and weight and the things that cause them to act as they do are very hard to make people understand.

When I spoke of the heat island effect it has to do with heat being stored in these concrete jungles. Nightmare actually believes that if you have some grass around an airport there's no heat island effect with the New York International Airport. The only thing he has a grasp on is his own penis.

Next Thursday they expect a very mild rain. Perhaps an average over 5,000 square miles of 1/3rd of an inch. This small light rain has the atmosphere carrying around 2,250 TONS of water at a speed of 30+ mph So a light rain shower would require what? 70,000 kwatts? Or more power than all of these counties use in a year.

If you do not grasp the extent of Mother Nature you cannot even guess at what climate change is.
13-10-2017 01:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
[b]Wake wrote:.... 5,000 square miles of 1/3rd of an inch, around 2,250 TONS of water.....

Volume of such is 3.86 billion cubic feet
Water weight of such a volume ~ = 120 million tons.
Again, the errors of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" pile up.... this time, ~ 53,000+ times.
Again, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" can't even get within exponents of the correct answer.
13-10-2017 02:38
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
litesong wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:.... 5,000 square miles of 1/3rd of an inch, around 2,250 TONS of water.....

Volume of such is 3.86 billion cubic feet
Water weight of such a volume ~ = 120 million tons.
Again, the errors of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" pile up.... this time, ~ 53,000+ times.
Again, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" can't even get within exponents of the correct answer.


Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?
13-10-2017 03:20
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.
13-10-2017 03:40
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.


I've never poked fun at someone for not being educated in math. You have. Can you do the math? Calculate the Kwatts for us. Will you?
Edited on 13-10-2017 03:41
13-10-2017 03:42
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!
13-10-2017 03:44
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!


Ah! Trying to change the subject with a big copynpaste that no one reads?
Again...can you calculate the Kilowatts?
13-10-2017 03:53
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!


Ah! Trying to change the subject with a big copynpaste that no one reads?
Again...can you calculate the Kilowatts?


Can you calculate the Kilowatts, Jizzy? Your fkbuddy Wake couldn't. He just drug 70,000kw out of his ass, and has no idea the true potential of a storm. Harnessing that energy would solve the world's energy problem [Which you guys don't even know we have].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate GWP (Global Warming Potential):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
A potential source of asymmetry - methods of heat dissipation1118-09-2016 09:34
▲ 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