Remember me
▼ Content

Historic ocean acidification



Page 2 of 2<12
25-01-2019 19:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1135)
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
These longer periods of unchanging weather (drought, flood) can be explained through changes in the Jet stream

How so?

The argument is that a smaller average temperature difference between north pole and adjacent regions towards the equator will yield "wobbling" jet-streams. All this is theory based on observations coupled with modelling but I have to say it makes sense to me.

GasGuzzler wrote:
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.

Yes, I guess the "big-picture" jet-stream gets weakened because of the smaller temperature gradient, but the local weather has more energy to work with and hence stronger winds when they do occur. I'm not saying all of this is figured out or that I understand all of these things, but I am saying that there is a good argument to be made that we should be concerned about the weather becoming more extreme based on what experts are saying.

I agree that we need to question the motives of said experts, and we need to ensure that we don't just blindly follow anything any "expert" tells us.

GasGuzzler wrote:
(which is clearly visible in the temperature record which everyone here keeps discrediting but honestly I've not heard anything that convinces me that reasonable estimates of the average temperature of a region or even the globe cannot be made to reasonable accuracy given the right tools, I must say I suspect that when the data happen to indicate something people don't like it is easiest to just find a way to discredit the data source).

Since we're talking weather, we'll go back to this...
Temperature where? The surface? 10 thousand ft? 20 thousand ft? 50? 60? Storms utilize temp differential through all levels, sometimes on up to 80 thousand ft. Why is only the surface temp important? Is "global temp" just the surface or the entire atmosphere? Can you REALLY measure the entire thing? It's always moving, always changing, and always trying to reach equilibrium....heating.


Okay, I agree that it seems like a pretty hard nut to crack to estimate the global surface temperatures. But that is why we have a science, climate science, that looks at these things. Until I've heard a good reason to disbelieve what an entire branch of science tells me, I'll go with: Yes, there are reasonable estimates, they may be off by a bit, but the trend is clear: Warming up.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Temperature is energy stored in matter. More energy stored in the atmosphere results in that energy getting released as stronger weather patterns.

Do you know how that energy gets released? You have to condense that moisture out of the air. I'll give you and hint. It takes COLD air, and a lot of it. Think temp differential and think equilibrium.

See above, we should really be talking about whether you distrust the climate science rather than us speculating about it. I've not heard many things from climate scientists that didn't make at least intuitive common sense to me, I just don't see any reason to doubt them.

So much meat and potatoes, paradoxes, conflicting statements above. Just don't have time to dissect it right now and will do so later, but...

You used the words "no reason to distrust climate science".

As with all religions, the one common factor they all have is faith. I have no problem with any religion as long as I am not asked to support it and pay for it.
You have just so purely and perfectly demonstrated how and why "climate science" is a religion.
Edited on 25-01-2019 19:47
25-01-2019 20:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so we agree that the earth's atmosphere has mass and it's energy content (heat, whatever, the thing you measure with a thermometer, define it any way you like) by the sun's emitted energy.

It's called thermal energy. The Sun emits electromagnetic energy. Absorption of the infrared portion of that electromagnetic energy and below converts to thermal energy.

Not all of the electromagnetic energy from the Sun is absorbed. Much of it is reflected away. We don't know how much. This is what the 'emissivity' or it's inverse, 'albedo' is all about. These are measured constants. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.
littleendian wrote:
So even if you (apparently?) disagree with the measurability of about anything, what is your basis for denying that changing the composition of said atmosphere (the relative mass of different things floating around in it, like CO2) will not have an effect on the temperature/heat/energy-content of that atmosphere and adjacent entities (mostly ocean)?

1) Because CO2 is not an energy source. You need energy to increase the temperature of anything.
2) Because CO2 is not capable of trapping heat or thermal energy.
3) Because CO2 is colder than the surface and cannot heat it.
4) Because CO2 nor any other magick gas be used to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (the Stefan-Boltzmann law).

CO2 does absorb infrared light (like most things). All that does is provide yet another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. The surface is cooled by this process. It's no different than the surface heating the atmosphere by conduction.
littleendian wrote:
Do you believe that industrialization, transport etc. emit CO2 into the atmosphere?
Yes. It also doesn't matter.
littleendian wrote:
Is it true that we are now 7 billion humans, which could arguably be called a force of global scale if each contribute to these emissions, admittedly to different degrees?

Void argument. Depends on what you are claiming. In terms of warming the Earth, no.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2019 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
GasGuzzler wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so we agree that the earth's atmosphere has mass and it's energy content (heat, whatever, the thing you measure with a thermometer, define it any way you like) by the sun's emitted energy.

No, we still don't agree on heat. Heat is not measured by thermometer. Temperature is measured by thermometer. Heat does not have to be hot or even warm. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place or object to another, always flowing from warmer to cooler, or even cold to colder. Think equilibrium.

You have it basically right, however, we don't measure temperature with a thermometer, that is like saying we measure inches with a ruler. What we measure is the average kinetic vibrational energy of the molecules of a substance. That is called 'thermal energy'. Thermometers measure thermal energy as a temperature in degrees (using the scale of your choice).

There is lots of energy around. Some of it is kinetic (something is actually moving), and some of it is potential (not moving, but stored). It can come in the form of electromagnetic energy (light), electrostatic energy (electricity), thermal energy (what we measure as temperature), and a host of others. Only thermal energy is temperature. The Sun warms the Earth using only electromagnetic energy (light). That is also the only way Earth can cool to space.

Therefore the center around the whole global warming debate must necessarily talk about absorption (conversion of light to some other form of energy, such as thermal energy or chemical energy), and emission (the reverse).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law discusses the relationship of the conversion of thermal energy to light (and it's absorption as well!). Quantum mechanics discusses what happens to a molecule depending on the frequency of light that is absorbed. Photons are not equal. Some are more energetic than others, and it also depends on how many of them there are per second.

GasGuzzler wrote:
So even if you (apparently?) disagree with the measurability of about anything, what is your basis for denying that changing the composition of said atmosphere (the relative mass of different things floating around in it, like CO2) will not have an effect on the temperature/heat/energy-content of that atmosphere and adjacent entities (mostly ocean)?

The sun warms the earth, the Earths surface warms the atmosphere and anything in it, and then that warmth is radiated into space at night. CO2 is not a heat source in any way and it can not warm anything that is warmer than itself. It can only help the earth cool the surface of the earth.

Do you believe that industrialization, transport etc. emit CO2 into the atmosphere?
Sure.

Is it true that we are now 7 billion humans, which could arguably be called a force of global scale if each contribute to these emissions, admittedly to different degrees?

It seems to me you have bought into the doom and gloom as millions have. There is SO much bad info out there. I also think you see CO2 as pollution. It is NOT. It is necessary for life. Did you know that greenhouses pump in CO2 for better plant growth? Optimum is between 1000-2000 ppm, depending on what they are growing. My opinion....added CO2 can only HELP in trying to feed 7 billion people!

I have only scratched the surface of the basics here. ITN will be along shortly for the full classroom version.


You have it quite right here. I don't need to add anything.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey littleendian, thanks for sticking around and having a conversation. We've seen dozens like yourself come here and just repeat what they heard on the news last night and then disappear, probably off to somewhere more friendly to their opinions. Hang around for a bit. It'll blow your mind what you can learn here vs a classroom.

I too find it enjoyable to meet new people on here. Some have learned not to treat the droning heads on the news as gospel anymore. We actually get into a variety of subjects, despite the fact that this forum is basically dedicated to the climate debate.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2019 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So even if you (apparently?) disagree with the measurability of about anything, what is your basis for denying that changing the composition of said atmosphere (the relative mass of different things floating around in it, like CO2) will not have an effect on the temperature/heat/energy-content of that atmosphere and adjacent entities (mostly ocean)?

The sun warms the earth, the Earths surface warms the atmosphere and anything in it, and then that warmth is radiated into space at night. CO2 is not a heat source in any way and it can not warm anything that is warmer than itself. It can only help the earth cool the surface of the earth.


It is certainly possible that energy radiated from the sun in one wave-length (visible light) can pass through the atmosphere without much interacting (e.g. reflection back to space) with the molecules there (e.g. CO2), hit the ground which then radiates the energy back up at different wavelengths (e.g. infrared) at which wavelength the electromagnetic energy does interact with CO2 more (i.e. being "trapped") thereby keeping more of the energy in the atmosphere depending on the composition of the atmosphere (e.g. increasing CO2 -> more energy stays in the atmosphere).
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Is it true that we are now 7 billion humans, which could arguably be called a force of global scale if each contribute to these emissions, admittedly to different degrees?

It seems to me you have bought into the doom and gloom as millions have. There is SO much bad info out there. I also think you see CO2 as pollution. It is NOT. It is necessary for life. Did you know that greenhouses pump in CO2 for better plant growth? Optimum is between 1000-2000 ppm, depending on what they are growing. My opinion....added CO2 can only HELP in trying to feed 7 billion people!


True, there is a fertilizing effect, but that doesn't rule out that an increasingly extreme climate, which is what climate models predict, doesn't result in net harm. Plants need stable conditions, floods and droughts kill them no matter the CO2 fertilization.


it's not possible to predict the weather reliably any further than 24-48 hours out. That 'prediction' is not really a prediction at all. It's like watching an approaching wave reach the shore.

Models are just that; models. They are algorithms (usually computer programs) that someone wrote to try to predict something. They are shadows at best, and the programming is designed to produce the desired data.

Computer programs aren't data. They shouldn't be used as such. Just because it draws a pretty graph or spits out numbers in nice neat columns doesn't make them real.

You might as well go to a fortune teller.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2019 21:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Is it true that we are now 7 billion humans, which could arguably be called a force of global scale if each contribute to these emissions, admittedly to different degrees?

It seems to me you have bought into the doom and gloom as millions have. There is SO much bad info out there. I also think you see CO2 as pollution. It is NOT. It is necessary for life. Did you know that greenhouses pump in CO2 for better plant growth? Optimum is between 1000-2000 ppm, depending on what they are growing. My opinion....added CO2 can only HELP in trying to feed 7 billion people!

By the way, how do you explain that those climate models run on historic data reproduce the historic measurements correctly? The models are shown the data from 1980 to 2000 and NOT the measured temperature data thereafter and they correctly reproduce the increase in global average atmospheric temperature? What would be the motivation of all those scientists to screw up the results? Each one of them could receive a Nobel price for showing that there is no climate change caused by human emissions.


These questions comes up a lot. I'll answer them individually:

Why are models of global temperatures inaccurate?
Because it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. A model, at the last, must be verified against existing data. There is none.

It is obvious that these models are nothing more than programs designed to create an 'official' look to the random numbers they produce as 'data'. Computer models aren't data.

What is the motivation of those <insert large number here> scientists to lie?
This is an argument from randU. First these 'scientists' are anonymous, and the number of them somehow means something. Remember, consensus is not used in science. A single scientist can create a new theory, determine the null hypothesis for it, and test that theory. If the theory survives, it is a theory of science. No consensus is necessary. Theories of science will continue to be such until they are falsified. No theory is ever proven in science. Science does not use supporting evidence, only conflicting evidence.

Now to the 'scientists' themselves.

Scientists are people. Like you and me, they have their own beliefs, religions, and the need to eat and house themselves. Unfortunately, the funding for most of them comes from a single source: the government. Government grants are the single funding source for most scientists in the world today. Governments do not make a profit. Their success metric is different than for a private company. The first purpose of any government or any government agency is to justify their own existence and to justify expansion. To do that, they must appear to solve a 'problem'. If there is no problem, they create one to 'solve'. Governments do not want to solve problems. Problems are their bread and butter. As long as there are 'problems' to 'solve', governments are justified spending money on them.

This may sound anarchistic, but that is wrong. Governments DO have a legitimate purpose. Conducting funding for science programs, however, is NOT one of them.

Thus, all those scientists, to get their paycheck, must toe the government agenda. If they don't, they don't eat. That's a pretty strong inducement to say whatever the government wants you to say.

The concept of 'global warming', came out of an extension of the ecology hysteria. ALL of it is designed to attack private corporations. It is an attempt to implement nothing less than Marxism through the guise of 'saving the planet'.

This is why a rare gas, carbon dioxide, is being used. This gas is so rare that it is only 0.04% of our atmosphere. Yet it is being blamed for everything simply because it is produced by industry.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx. Make no mistake about this.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2019 22:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I'm starting my work day here and I'm buried with money to be made....so I'll have to be brief and just answer a couple...

True, there is a fertilizing effect, but that doesn't rule out that an increasingly extreme climate, which is what climate models predict, doesn't result in net harm. Plants need stable conditions, floods and droughts kill them no matter the CO2 fertilization.

Once again I think you've bought into the hype about extreme weather. We have excellent records of extreme events here in the United States. (you said you're in Germany, right?)Our hurricane records date back to the 1850s. I am a bit of a weather nut/nerd. The United States is one of the most wild weather prone areas in the world due to it's geographical location and features. I've have done a LOT of digging. Everything I can find actually points slightly in the opposite direction. There has been NO increase in droughts/floods/hurricanes/severe thunderstorms/snowstorms. However, it seems every time the weather does something amazing, it is headline news and buried in that story somewhere is "climate change".

But, we should actually back up a bit.....

Let's take a simple thunderstorm. Would you be able to explain how thunderstorm is more intense just because of a warmer Earth?

By the way, how do you explain that those climate models run on historic data reproduce the historic measurements correctly? The models are shown the data from 1980 to 2000 and NOT the measured temperature data thereafter and they correctly reproduce the increase in global average atmospheric temperature?

It is quite simple. If you started with fake numbers, you will end with fake numbers. It is all manufactured so they can be right and push the agenda forward.
Many will argue with ITNs position that global temp can not be measured. I tend to agree with him. For example, I drove to work this morning, about 30 miles. There is a calm wind today and high pressure...about 1025mb. I watched the temp go from -21F up to -12F, back down to -17F, then -12F as I arrived. No cold front/warm front...nothing moving except for me. You can do the same with ocean temps. Research some buoy readings and you'll find 4-d degree differences in just a few miles. (kms if you prefer)
Do some searching into NOAA. That is where the IPCC gets there numbers, and NOAA has been caught cooking the books. All the "data" is not data. It is all manufactured.
Thanks, I enjoy a lively discussion. So far there's been very little of the usual ad-hominem shit-show so often seen on the interwebs, which is really refreshing. I must say I completely disagree with about everyone I've talked to so far though, no hard feelings ;-)

Ha! We are NOT immune to shit shows around here!


Well argued. You have it quite right, sir.


You mentioned a single thunderstorm. How does it form (and dissipate) and what does a warmer temperature have to do with it? We tend to get more thunderstorms during the summer. Why? I will answer this here.

First, you need to form a cloud. These form because air has water vapor in it. This vapor is invisible, but is there, even in the driest of deserts. Air has the peculiar property that it can hold more water vapor in higher temperatures. We can measure this in an area, in a similar way to measuring temperature, by using a hydrometer. In it's simplest form, this is two thermometers, one dry and one with it's bulb in a bit of material that is wet. You swing this thing around your head for a bit. That dries the wet bulb from evaporation. It takes thermal energy to do that. You then read both thermometers. The one that was wet will show a cooler 'temperature' than the dry one. Again, it is evaporation that cools the wet thermometer.

Evaporation is easier when there is little water vapor already in the air. This makes the instrument capable of directly measuring the amount of water vapor in the air, even though it is invisible. Weather stations call this number 'humidity' or 'dew point'. The dew point is the temperature where water vapor can no longer stay invisible and will begin to form visible liquid water in tiny droplets. This is what a cloud or fog is.

Rising air cools. As it does so, it may cool enough to form a cloud this is why clouds tend to have flat bases. The air is rising because it is warmer than the cool air above it. Air has a natural cooling rate of about 2.5 deg F per 1000 feet of altitude in the troposphere. Any parcel of air that cools faster than this as you rise in altitude is called 'unstable' air. Once the air starts to rise, the even colder air it rises into makes it want to rise even faster. The warm can't cool fast enough. Any rate less than this natural rate is called 'stable' air. It doesn't rise as fast or maybe at all.

Unstable air is storms and thunderstorms. The more unstable the more intense the storm. Stable air is inversion layers, fog, clear skies, or status type clouds that may only produce a drizzle.

In other words, the reason you get thunderstorms is not because of warmer temperatures, but because of a greater [i]difference]/i] in temperature. If the upper air cools, you can get thunderstorms even in freezing conditions (called thundersnow). The surface air is most affected by changing conditions, so these storms tend to happen in the summer, when the Sun can heat the surface more fiercely than before.

Once the storm forms, it works to destroy itself. Storms are convective heating of the upper atmosphere from the surface air. Once heated, the storm can no longer sustain itself, and it dies.

The life of a typical thunderstorm cell is typically only a few hours long. The things literally beat the stuffings out of themselves.

Anything that forces air aloft can cause clouds, rain, and thunderstorms. A cold ftont, with cold air digging in under warmer air and tossing it aloft, winds over mountains, a large difference in temperatures causing a warm air bubble to form and begin to rise, anything.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-01-2019 23:05
25-01-2019 23:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
There has been NO increase in droughts/floods/hurricanes/severe thunderstorms/snowstorms. However, it seems every time the weather does something amazing, it is headline news and buried in that story somewhere is "climate change".

Germany here, Berlin. We've had warmer summers with long spells of little to no precipitation, which has triggered droughts in Brandenburg (area surrounding Berlin). Yield loss of about 30% last summer because of long period without rain. I keep hearing similar things about other regions.

Brandenburg is not the Earth. Using local weather to describe global conditions is ridiculous. So is pointing to the local weather anywhere else. You are ignoring areas seeing extra rain this year (such as California).
littleendian wrote:
These longer periods of unchanging weather (drought, flood) can be explained through changes in the Jet stream which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator

The average position of the jet stream is unchanged. It bends and loops because of weather, but that's all.
littleendian wrote:
because the arctic warms faster than the rest (which is clearly visible in the temperature record

No, it doesn't. The Arctic receives less sunlight, and does receive any at all for several months out of the year. Further, the Arctic is ice and water, which has a higher specific heat index than dry air or land. There is not record of Arctic temperatures or of global temperatures.
littleendian wrote:
which everyone here keeps discrediting but honestly I've not heard anything that convinces me that reasonable estimates of the average temperature of a region or even the globe cannot be made to reasonable accuracy given the right tools, I must say I suspect that when the data happen to indicate something people don't like it is easiest to just find a way to discredit the data source).

What is the data source? Who took the measurements and when? What was the instrumentation used? What is the instrument design, how was it calibrated, and what tolerance does it have? How were biasing influences removed? Where is the raw data? If a summary is used, what is the source of variance used and how is it justified? What is the margin of error?

There are the minimum demands I require of any data that anyone presents to me. They are not unreasonable.

littleendian wrote:
Temperature is energy stored in matter. More energy stored in the atmosphere results in that energy getting released as stronger weather patterns.

WRONG. Temperature is a measurement of thermal energy. That is not potential energy, so it is not stored. There is always heat. You are simply assuming that temperatures have increased. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
littleendian wrote:
Okay, I opened a new thread in the first (General Discussion?) forum about the reasons so many people seem to mistrust climate scientists and/or the IPCC. Maybe you'd enjoy sharing the reasons for you believing that data was "manufactured" there...

I already answered that here. Go read it.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2019 23:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
littleendian wrote:
The argument is that a smaller average temperature difference between north pole and adjacent regions towards the equator will yield "wobbling" jet-streams. All this is theory based on observations coupled with modelling but I have to say it makes sense to me.

There isn't a smaller difference. The Arctic gets much less sunlight than regions south of the jet stream. There are no observations of it. You are quoting from those that make this stuff up. Modelling is not data.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, I guess the "big-picture" jet-stream gets weakened because of the smaller temperature gradient,

It is not weakened. It is just as strong as ever. It simply loops and curves with the weather. Gas Guzzler made an incorrect statement here. The jet stream also does not control the weather. It's location and shape is rather a consequence of weather.
littleendian wrote:
but the local weather has more energy to work with and hence stronger winds when they do occur.

Warmer air does not mean stronger winds. Some of the hottest days in summer often have little wind.
littleendian wrote:
I'm not saying all of this is figured out or that I understand all of these things, but I am saying that there is a good argument to be made

Void argument fallacy. You have not yet provided the 'good argument'. All you have done is echo what news and government tells you. Newspapers sell bad news. That's what sells. Governments have their own agendas to increase their power.The two are aligned for the purposes of preaching the Church of Global Warming.
littleendian wrote:
that we should be concerned about the weather becoming more extreme based on what experts are saying.
I agree that we need to question the motives of said experts, and we need to ensure that we don't just blindly follow anything any "expert" tells us.

This is a paradox. Which is it, dude?
littleendian wrote:
Okay, I agree that it seems like a pretty hard nut to crack to estimate the global surface temperatures.

It's simply not possible. We couldn't build enough thermometers to properly measure the temperature of the Earth. This is a math problem. It has nothing to do with science.
littleendian wrote:
But that is why we have a science, climate science, that looks at these things.

Science does not override the math problem. There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no theories about things that can't be defined quantitatively. Tests against the null hypothesis for a theory of science must be definable, specific, and produce a specific result. Tests are only made to try to break a theory, never to support it.
littleendian wrote:
Until I've heard a good reason to disbelieve what an entire branch of science tells me,

'Climate' is not a branch of science.
littleendian wrote:
I'll go with: Yes, there are reasonable estimates, they may be off by a bit, but the trend is clear: Warming up.

You can't have a trend without measurements. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
littleendian wrote:
See above, we should really be talking about whether you distrust the climate science rather than us speculating about it.
There is no such thing as 'climate science'.
littleendian wrote:
I've not heard many things from climate scientists that didn't make at least intuitive common sense to me, I just don't see any reason to doubt them.

Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They also deny statistical and probability mathematics.

They are not scientists. They have created no theory of science, and even deny existing theories of science.

I have given you the reasons to distrust them. You continue to choose to ignore it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-01-2019 23:49
26-01-2019 00:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1135)
I don't believe I made and incorrect statement here.

Littleendian wrote:
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

GasGuzzler wrote:
What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.


What he described (Arctic warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet) would certainly,

1. Decrease the strength of the jet stream as it is fed by temp differential.

2. Decrease the strength of low pressure systems(storm systems) as they also thrive on temp differential and often ride the jet nearest the steepest temp gradient.

3. Lessen the potential for violent storms as strong low pressure and a strong jet are 2 key ingredients for strong/violent storms(at least where I live in the Midwest)...you know the type of weather that brings out the talking heads.

Correct, the jet stream does NOT control the weather, but it surely does enhance it, mainly with creating/aiding lift and venting a storm.
26-01-2019 02:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't believe I made and incorrect statement here.

Littleendian wrote:
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

GasGuzzler wrote:
What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.


What he described (Arctic warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet) would certainly,

1. Decrease the strength of the jet stream as it is fed by temp differential.

2. Decrease the strength of low pressure systems(storm systems) as they also thrive on temp differential and often ride the jet nearest the steepest temp gradient.

3. Lessen the potential for violent storms as strong low pressure and a strong jet are 2 key ingredients for strong/violent storms(at least where I live in the Midwest)...you know the type of weather that brings out the talking heads.

Correct, the jet stream does NOT control the weather, but it surely does enhance it, mainly with creating/aiding lift and venting a storm.

Actually, the jet stream doesn't create lift. It IS lift of warm air against cooler descending air to the north. It doesn't vent a storm either. Lows tend to follow along the southern side of the jet stream because that's what a low is...lifting air.

You are right though. His argument that colder air is warming faster than warm air would reduce storms, and would even reverse the flow of air causing the jet stream. It would still run eastward, due to the spin of the planet and the action of uneven heating of the atmosphere by the Sun as it moves across the sky, but the lifting air would be on the NORTH side of the jetstream, instead of that side being falling air (and the resulting high pressure areas. The high pressure areas would tend to follow the southern side of the jetstream. That means the U.S. would experience drier, colder air at all times. Essentially then, WE would become the Arctic while they sell tropical clothes and merchandise in what is now the Arctic.

Think of what THAT would do to the polar bears!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-01-2019 02:36
26-01-2019 03:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1135)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't believe I made and incorrect statement here.

[quote]Littleendian wrote:
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

GasGuzzler wrote:
What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.


What he described (Arctic warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet) would certainly,

1. Decrease the strength of the jet stream as it is fed by temp differential.

2. Decrease the strength of low pressure systems(storm systems) as they also thrive on temp differential and often ride the jet nearest the steepest temp gradient.

3. Lessen the potential for violent storms as strong low pressure and a strong jet are 2 key ingredients for strong/violent storms(at least where I live in the Midwest)...you know the type of weather that brings out the talking heads.

Correct, the jet stream does NOT control the weather, but it surely does enhance it, mainly with creating/aiding lift and venting a storm.

Actually, the jet stream doesn't create lift. It IS lift of warm air against cooler descending air to the north.

Disagree. The body builder is not lift, he creates lift. No?
It doesn't vent a storm either.

Maybe vent is not the right word. Best analogy (and when it all came together for me) is the indoor wood burner. Years ago I installed an "add on" wood burning furnace right next to my propane furnace. I used it a couple times and it worked great. One morning I go to the basement and the fire is completely out. I opened the chamber and it was cold in there. I thought nothing of it. I built my burn pile and loaded kindling all around it. I lit it up and all that smoke came pouring out the door instead of up the chimney. I had a downdraft. (the smoke was then sucked into my cold air return and immediately throughout the entire house. The wife was PISSED!!
)
I started to notice how the fire vented so much better when there was wind outside.
Same with thunderstorm growth enhanced by the jet stream. A storm certainly doesn't always need the jet, but it has a lot more fun with it, than without it.




Lows tend to follow along the southern side of the jet stream because that's what a low is...lifting air.

Yup, completely agree.

You are right though. His argument that colder air is warming faster than warm air would reduce storms, and would even reverse the flow of air causing the jet stream. It would still run eastward, due to the spin of the planet and the action of uneven heating of the atmosphere by the Sun as it moves across the sky, but the lifting air would be on the NORTH side of the jetstream, instead of that side being falling air (and the resulting high pressure areas. The high pressure areas would tend to follow the southern side of the jetstream. That means the U.S. would experience drier, colder air at all times. Essentially then, WE would become the Arctic while they sell tropical clothes and merchandise in what is now the Arctic.

Think of what THAT would do to the polar bears!

Ha! Never thought of it that way. Damn Polar bears just can't win!
Edited on 26-01-2019 03:45
26-01-2019 10:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't believe I made and incorrect statement here.

[quote]Littleendian wrote:
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

GasGuzzler wrote:
What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.


What he described (Arctic warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet) would certainly,

1. Decrease the strength of the jet stream as it is fed by temp differential.

2. Decrease the strength of low pressure systems(storm systems) as they also thrive on temp differential and often ride the jet nearest the steepest temp gradient.

3. Lessen the potential for violent storms as strong low pressure and a strong jet are 2 key ingredients for strong/violent storms(at least where I live in the Midwest)...you know the type of weather that brings out the talking heads.

Correct, the jet stream does NOT control the weather, but it surely does enhance it, mainly with creating/aiding lift and venting a storm.

Actually, the jet stream doesn't create lift. It IS lift of warm air against cooler descending air to the north.

Disagree. The body builder is not lift, he creates lift. No?


Okay. Here's another way to look at it.

Air that is warmed is less dense than colder air. Between 30 deg N and 60 deg N, this air moves northward until the cold air above it is cold enough to start the warm air rising. At the same time, cold dry air from the poles is moving south and warming as it goes. They meet up at 60 deg N (during equinox) and they rise together. The southern air has more humidity and high temperature of the two, so it rises higher than the polar column. The difference produces a kind of horizontal tornado. This is the jet stream. The jet stream doesn't cause air to rise, it is there because air is rising. It is rising differently depending on whether it is dry polar air that has been warmed, or because it is southern air that is moist and even warmer. These two air mass don't mix well.

Jet streams form where two Hadley cells meet. The jet streams will move north and south with the seasons, since they are driven by the Sun.

Rising air forms clouds. That's why lows tend to track the jet stream, especially on the southern side of it.

Rising air causes the jet stream. The jet stream does not cause rising air.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2019 10:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Maybe vent is not the right word. Best analogy (and when it all came together for me) is the indoor wood burner. Years ago I installed an "add on" wood burning furnace right next to my propane furnace. I used it a couple times and it worked great. One morning I go to the basement and the fire is completely out. I opened the chamber and it was cold in there. I thought nothing of it. I built my burn pile and loaded kindling all around it. I lit it up and all that smoke came pouring out the door instead of up the chimney. I had a downdraft. (the smoke was then sucked into my cold air return and immediately throughout the entire house. The wife was PISSED!!
)
I started to notice how the fire vented so much better when there was wind outside.
Same with thunderstorm growth enhanced by the jet stream. A storm certainly doesn't always need the jet, but it has a lot more fun with it, than without it.



I bet she was! Chimneys, however, work different from storms. They are a contained column of air, while the open atmosphere is not. Yes, chimneys work better when a wind is blowing.

Think of a chimney like a pipe (that's what it is, after all). All pipes have a resistance to the flow of anything that's in them. When a wind blows across the top of a chimney, it acts a bit like blowing on a pop bottle. It creates a suction near the top of the chimney. This is enough pressure difference to get air flowing through a cold chimney. Without that wind, that chimney may not have enough pressure difference to allow warmer air to begin rising. Remember, air will only rise if it can't cool fast enough as it rises. A cold chimney cools the air too fast. A lack of pressure differential because there is no or little wind can render a chimney useless. The smoke goes out the front of the fireplace instead. The fire can actually pull cold air DOWN the chimney because it's easier to send warm air into the house from the fire.

Of course you get all the smoke and crap that comes with it, unfortunately!

Too bad your cold air return was so near the fireplace! It might have even helped to suck air downward if the fan was running (it probably was, since it went throughout the house so fast!).

If it's any consolation prize, you aren't the first to learn about chimneys the hard way, or the last!

Incidentally, that's why smoke stacks for coal plants are so tall...to get their tops up into the wind.

Wood fired steam locomotives had the same problem you ran into. Their chimneys are not that high, and the tubing between the firebox and the chimney just adds to the resistance of flow. When firing up one of those suckers, the cab could get quite smokey until the chimney got warm enough to start working. Even then, many of them would use waste steam from the valve boxes to build a chimney venturi, helping to pull air up through that little chimney on the thing. The additional draft on the fire would make it hotter, and be more efficient in producing the steam in the first place. Coal was better because it burned cleaner.


The Parrot Killer
10-03-2019 04:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
still learning wrote:
Where did you get the notion of "completely doomed?"
From an actual climate scientist?


Where did you get the notion that there is such a thing as a "climate scientist"?

There is no such thing as "Climate" science.

The idea of a global climate is a contradiction in terms. A climate is local conditions bounded by a time period. There are millions of climates on planet earth. "Global" is the opposite of "Local." You can't have a global local.

We can talk about the summer climate of Phoenix; it is "hot and arid."

We can talk about the political climate of DC leading up to midterms as "polarized and volatile."

We can talk about the economic climate on Wall St. after tariffs are imposed on China as uncertain and cautious."

So tell me, what is the global climate? Hot and arid? Cold and windy? Subtropical and rainy? I hope you get the point that there isn't any such thing.

Climate Change is a Marxist religion and "Climate" is simply a spiritual component of the faith. There are no scientists of a religion. In the Climate Change faith, Climate is to Earth as the human soul is to people in Christianity. Christians claim that sins stain and torture the human soul whereas Marxists claim that carbon sins stain and torture Climate. If you ask a Christian to point to his soul he'll respond "You can't see it, it's invisible and you have to believe first before you can discuss it" whereas if you ask a Marxist to show you Climate he'll respond "You can't see it, it's invisible and you have to believe first before you can discuss it."

You might notice that Christians aren't claiming that the human soul is settled science. You might notice that weathermen *do* claim that Climate *is* settled science.


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
17-03-2019 17:39
Laws of Nature
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Hi there,
I just found this webpage, this is my first post.. I like the idea of fruitful interaction and actual gain of knowledge.. however, there seems to be room for improvement.

This thread is a good example how people with different grade of wisdom interact and get lost in nitpicking.
I could jump in and point out that the question of measuring a parameter like the global temperature does not belong to math, but experimental physics and no matter how you do it (even with palm reading) you will get a valid observation! (a value with error bar)
or
when someone is posting about "anthropogenic ocean acidification", he likely means changes of C and O at the sea surface (in various forms), which to the best of my knowledge has been measured an is statistically significant.

However, the point of my first post here is hubris! I see it on both sides.. to think you know more than you actually do (I do to, no worries).
The great simplifiers have already done enough damage to science.
Each observation has a value "humans will cause the end of the world" and an uncertainty, please make sure to never separate these two!
BTW IMHO we are still at debating the anthropogenic global warming, climate change as a consequence is way down the pipe..
I would suggest to refer more to wikipedia any time an expression is under debate..
Even so for the first example I tried, I found this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#cite_note-feeley08-1
and in the [1]:
"..Although much of the corrosive character of these waters is the natural result of respiration processes at intermediate depths below the euphotic zone,.."
followed by an attempt to predict what would have happened in the ocean without anthropogenic CO2 (ignoring potential cyclic behavior in the ocean upwelling)

=> I believe, in order for this forum to succeed, we need a foundation of science to work with.. maybe even changing wikipedia

Cheers,
LoN
17-03-2019 18:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Laws of Nature wrote:.. however, there seems to be room for improvement.

That would be in the form of the religiously indoctrinated accepting actual science as science instead of insisting that their religious dogma is "settled science" and thus denying actual science.

It is very difficult to discuss science when you have participants denying it.

Laws of Nature wrote: I could jump in and point out that the question of measuring a parameter like the global temperature does not belong to math, but experimental physics

... and you would be mistaken. Using physics would be "calculating" the earth's average global temperature, e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann. Measuring would necessarily involve math.

Laws of Nature wrote: or when someone is posting about "anthropogenic ocean acidification", he likely means changes of C and O at the sea surface (in various forms), which to the best of my knowledge has been measured an is statistically significant.

... and you would be mistaken, on both counts.

Warmizombies are scientifically illiterate and believe the religious dogma that the ocean is transforming into caustic chemicals. And no, global ocean pH changes have not been measured , much less been found to be "statistically significant."

The ocean has never acidified. pH values moving towards 7.0 are said to be "neutralizing." Ocean pH values are probably becoming more alkaline due to normal geological activity. There is no bleach involved in coral expulsion of algae. The Great Coral Reef is thriving.

What, exactly, do you believe there is to discuss?

Laws of Nature wrote:However, the point of my first post here is hubris! I see it on both sides.

No you don't. You only see it on one side, i.e. the Global Warming congregation that believes its religion is "settled science."

The other side, actual science, is using objective, dispassionate discourse to no avail.

Laws of Nature wrote: BTW IMHO we are still at debating the anthropogenic global warming,

Nope. The warmizombie crowd is usually avoiding healthy debate and is instead slinging Climate prayers from the safety of the choir seating.

Laws of Nature wrote: I would suggest to refer more to wikipedia any time an expression is under debate..

Absurd. You might as well refer to the Christian Bible. The Q'ran. The Communist Manifesto.

When in doubt, go with what science says.

Laws of Nature wrote: Even so for the first example I tried, I found this

Only the religiously indoctrinated will rush to Wikipedia for their direct orders from the IPCC.

The science side will summarily dismiss all Wikipedia references out of hand.

Laws of Nature wrote: => I believe, in order for this forum to succeed, we need a foundation of science to work with.. maybe even changing wikipedia

Wikipedia will not allow it.

I used to be a contributor for Wikipedia (and I'm still trying to wash that stink off me) until I tried cleaning up the science articles to bring them in line with Wikipedia's stated policies. It turns out that Wikipedia is run by militant leftists who ensure radical leftist political viewpoints are represented throughout (in clear violation of their own stated policies) and they lock down those parts of the articles, or the articles in their entirety, to ensure no one to the right of Bernie Sanders somehow waters down the message.


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
18-03-2019 17:20
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
Carbonic acid isn't powerful like sulfuric acid. You can keep fish in coca cola. No hard to ocean whatsoever.
19-03-2019 12:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
littleendian wrote: About that scientific consensus thing, let me ask you a question

There's no such thing as a scientific consensus. Opinions do not factor into science. Science is not subjective.

littleendian wrote: Your denial of anthropogenic climate change reminds me of someone who refuses to believe the science of germs because they haven't seen it for themselves.

Your type of insistence that your CAGW religion is the absolute Truth, the Light and the Way is what led to the Spanish Inquisition. Religious fanatics, such as yourself, wouldn't recognize science if it were right in front of them. In fact, it seems clear to me that you cannot discern religion from science.

That's nothing of which to be proud.

littleendian wrote: Well, my friend, depending on your age you just might see climate change in action. I hope you're right and everything will continue as normal, but I'm afraid you're wrong.

This isn't litesong, is it?


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
25-04-2019 03:57
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(420)
still learning wrote:
littleendian wrote:
..... completely doomed.....

....ocean acidification significantly higher than today......

....What do we know about how life in the ocean reacted in these historic situations?.....


Where did you get the notion of "completely doomed?"
From an actual climate scientist? Some flippant comment by an entertainer?

Anyway, about lowered pH in the ocean in the past, from about 120 million years ago because of volcanic CO2: try https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/07/marine-creatures-survived-ancient-ocean-acidification

and http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5990/428

What do we know about this? Not a lot really. Enough to know that some organisms came through OK, some didn't.


Its funny that they claim that the huge increase in co2 was due to a volcano, yet then they say that we are increasing the co2 level faster. The volcano would have spewed that much co2 in a matter of weeks, not decades.
25-04-2019 04:27
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(592)
dehammer wrote:
still learning wrote:
littleendian wrote:
..... completely doomed.....

....ocean acidification significantly higher than today......

....What do we know about how life in the ocean reacted in these historic situations?.....


Where did you get the notion of "completely doomed?"
From an actual climate scientist? Some flippant comment by an entertainer?

Anyway, about lowered pH in the ocean in the past, from about 120 million years ago because of volcanic CO2: try https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/07/marine-creatures-survived-ancient-ocean-acidification

and http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5990/428

What do we know about this? Not a lot really. Enough to know that some organisms came through OK, some didn't.


Its funny that they claim that the huge increase in co2 was due to a volcano, yet then they say that we are increasing the co2 level faster. The volcano would have spewed that much co2 in a matter of weeks, not decades.


Yeah, it is funny. The plan is to spend a lot of money, expend a lot of resources, tax and inconvenience most people, but nature has the potential of releasing more of the evil 'Greenhouse' gasses in just a few weeks, than mankind has produced in a century. The whole global warming doomsday deal is shady to begin with, but the likelihood of any progress in combating it, will often be lost to other natural processes, like volcanoes and wildfires.

Still will never understand how they can ignore our need for plant life as food, and reducing CO2, will reduce plant growth/food supply. The call it The Green movement, but it seems to be more the opposite. A warmer climate, and considerably more CO2, would be better for plants, which would mean a greener planet, with plentiful food, and other resources, free and easy. Reducing CO2 is going to cost a lot of money, deplete resources. Guess you have to go with what you can profit from, not what's best for the planet.
25-04-2019 18:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Laws of Nature wrote:
Hi there,
I just found this webpage, this is my first post.. I like the idea of fruitful interaction and actual gain of knowledge.. however, there seems to be room for improvement.

This thread is a good example how people with different grade of wisdom interact and get lost in nitpicking.
I could jump in and point out that the question of measuring a parameter like the global temperature does not belong to math, but experimental physics

No, it's math. You can't get away from it by simply discarding it.
Laws of Nature wrote:
and no matter how you do it (even with palm reading) you will get a valid observation! (a value with error bar)

There is no such thing as a 'valid' observation. All observations (and all data collected from them) are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They each require us to interpret what our senses tell us. That interpretation is according to our own personal model of the Universe and how it works, which is as unique to each of us as fingerprints.
Laws of Nature wrote:
or
when someone is posting about "anthropogenic ocean acidification", he likely means changes of C and O at the sea surface (in various forms), which to the best of my knowledge has been measured an is statistically significant.

This is not statistics and is not measurable due to actual statistical math and lack of instrumentation.
Laws of Nature wrote:
However, the point of my first post here is hubris! I see it on both sides.. to think you know more than you actually do (I do to, no worries).
Science isn't hubris.
Laws of Nature wrote:
The great simplifiers have already done enough damage to science.
Science cannot be damaged. It simply is. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less.
Laws of Nature wrote:
Each observation has a value "humans will cause the end of the world" and an uncertainty, please make sure to never separate these two!
Observation is not part of science. No theory of science contains an observation.
Laws of Nature wrote:
BTW IMHO we are still at debating the anthropogenic global warming, climate change as a consequence is way down the pipe..

The phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. It's a buzzword. It can only be defined by itself. The phrase 'global warming' is meaningless. It's also a buzzword. It can only be defined by itself. Even the word 'warming' is pretty meaningless. From when to when? Why are those two points in time important? Why are any other two points in time not important?
Laws of Nature wrote:
I would suggest to refer more to wikipedia any time an expression is under debate..

Wikipedia is discarded here on sight. There are too many articles in there that are incomplete, badly written, or just plain wrong. This is a problem particularly about 'global warming'. You cannot use that reference here. It is not accepted.
Laws of Nature wrote:
Even so for the first example I tried, I found this

...Holy Link discarded...
"..Although much of the corrosive character of these waters is the natural result of respiration processes at intermediate depths below the euphotic zone,.."
followed by an attempt to predict what would have happened in the ocean without anthropogenic CO2 (ignoring potential cyclic behavior in the ocean upwelling)

Circular argument, with arguments extending from it. A religious statement. What if's using meaningless buzzwords is equally meaningless. The oceans are alkaline. You can't acidify them. This is chemistry, dude.
Laws of Nature wrote:
=> I believe, in order for this forum to succeed, we need a foundation of science to work with.. maybe even changing wikipedia

Good luck. Wikipedia has a long history of locking anyone out wanting to put actual science about so-called 'global warming' into Wikipedia.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2019 18:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
dehammer wrote:
still learning wrote:
littleendian wrote:
..... completely doomed.....

....ocean acidification significantly higher than today......

....What do we know about how life in the ocean reacted in these historic situations?.....


Where did you get the notion of "completely doomed?"
From an actual climate scientist? Some flippant comment by an entertainer?

Anyway, about lowered pH in the ocean in the past, from about 120 million years ago because of volcanic CO2: try https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/07/marine-creatures-survived-ancient-ocean-acidification

and http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5990/428

What do we know about this? Not a lot really. Enough to know that some organisms came through OK, some didn't.


Its funny that they claim that the huge increase in co2 was due to a volcano, yet then they say that we are increasing the co2 level faster. The volcano would have spewed that much co2 in a matter of weeks, not decades.


CO2 doesn't matter. It has absolutely no capability to alter the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Historic ocean acidification:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
How can more CO2 inthe air go into ocean?608-02-2019 03:46
If all the heat goes into the ocean then why would there be hot summer in any given year?821-01-2019 19:26
Ever Wonder If The warming Arctic Ocean Is Causing This ?1508-01-2018 09:10
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact