Remember me
▼ Content

Our Future: The kids are right – we must act on climate change



Page 2 of 2<12
15-03-2019 00:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
Into the Night wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.


Kind of off topic here but since atmospheric temperatures are related to the number of collisions that atmospheric gases have, can the same hold true for water? Basically slower moving water would be more excited because of friction than faster moving water.
Linear/angular momentum of a molecule would come into play here.

Water is complicated, A cup of water at say 27 C contains molecules across the entire liquid temperature span, and likely beyond.
I used to do this trick for the students at the university, where I
use a vacuum to boil a small volume of water into ice.
The vacuum pulls out all of the molecules which are above the
PVT point, at some point the the numbers all cross the triple point,
and the water goes from boiling to ice in the blink of an eye.


The boiling point of any liquid is reduced in a vacuum, not just water.

I guess PV=nRT kind of eludes you, doesn't it?



@Longview,
This is the only "action" itn gets if you know what I mean. If you notice, he isn't concerned with how gasses and water in the same environment separate when conserving energy. Instead he mentions something basic that anyone can find online.
I think why I continue to post in here is because once in a while someone who isn't an **** will post in here not understanding that it's a sea of trolls. I've dealt with worse. In basketball speak, these guys don't have "game".
You do know things I consider. But before we can understand if man can influence climate change then we need to understand it's natural variations.
Some research done outside of the IPCC kind of suggests that we've about reached peak warming after an ice age. With that event, the tendency does seem to be a spike in warming before the next glacial cycle starts.
Look at their graph. If you look at the July insolation and compare it to other bands that NOAA shows, we are heading for cooling. This is if we accept what NOAA says about current and past events. This is where the people in here only care about saying there is no climate change. Science has proven there is no warming. That just doesn't happen.
And with ITN, a Native American who hates white people IMHO. He misses the day when Native Americans could kidnap and rape women because there were no laws. Sacajawea is one example. If she wasn't kidnapped and raped then Lewis and Clark wouldn't have had her on their expedition. What saved the expedition was the people that lost Sacajawea. They helped Lewis and Clark because the Chief saw his daughter again. Hollywood wishes they thought of writing that script.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles
15-03-2019 00:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Longview wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.


What real data? Best I can figure, standardized recording didn't start until the 1950s. A few locations, doesn't really represent the entire planet very well. CO2 measurements started in 1958, single location. When I saw 'amplification', as an electronics guy, I'm thinking adding energy to a signal. But, the atmosphere isn't a circuit board. Only half the planet adding energy from the sun, other half doesn't go to sleep, so we can just ignore it. You are talking about very little increases (fractional degrees), yet the margin of error for the data used is huge, and spread over a considerable time span. Might work that way on virtual Earth, in a video game, but hardly possible in the real world.


We had a fairly broad spectrum of temperature readings from the 1880's onward. But there were very large gaps in the numbers. There were no readings from most of Africa, almost none from South America, none from the Pacific Islands and virtually NO sea temperatures even though the oceans cover 70% of the Earth.

Here is the real problem - what these "climate scientists" are claiming for areas of the US, Europe and the Arctic areas in fact are almost entirely lies.

Tony Heller wrote a search engine that works on daily newspapers from around the world. A very large data base is there. In particular, the Arctic Ice Pack has been claimed to be disappearing every 5 years or so since recording began in the 1800's. Don't look now, but it never disappeared and is presently almost at its all time measured high.

Most of the land temperature data has been completely destroyed in the climate prediction documents from NASA climate division so anyone that tries to use that stuff is very likely to end up with the same answers as NASA.

But if you look up these same temperatures out of the newspapers, the NASA and NOAA data are completely bogus.

Now it IS possible to use the data we do have if we could get NASA to actually publish the real data. Even though it is comparatively sparse the Weather Satellite records show us the effects of temperatures in the northern hemisphere and the reaction in the southern hemisphere, if you compare these with the Milankovitch Cycles and the solar cycles, you can get a fairly good idea of what the global data was by looking at the global temperature responses compared to the way it is presently reacting.

This would make a good Thesis paper though you have to start with honest data and I don't know if you can get any now that NASA and NOAA have gone out of their way to destroy it.
15-03-2019 00:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote: This is the only "action" itn gets if you know what I mean.

Are you his wife and cutting him off?

What do you know about his life? I'm curious.

James___ wrote: I think why I continue to post in here is because once in a while someone who isn't an **** will post in here not understanding that it's a sea of trolls.

Ahhh, the intellectual coward reveals himself. He can't abide viewpoints that don't validate his religion.

Christians have the term "heathens."
Muslims have "infidels."
Warmizombies have "deniers."
Intellectual cowards have "trolls."

James___ wrote:
I've dealt with worse. In basketball speak, these guys don't have "game".

In straight speak you don't have 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
15-03-2019 01:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: This is the only "action" itn gets if you know what I mean.

Are you his wife and cutting him off?

What do you know about his life? I'm curious.




Litesong is either his sister or his wife. He goes to Native American pow wows in south eastern Oregon. She posted about that before he banned her.
It is odd to say the least. No one in here realized that Litesong was female. Kind of why I've mentioned the movie Wind River before https://www.bustle.com/p/the-true-story-behind-wind-river-is-this-hidden-injustice-against-native-american-women-75304.
In a way it is sad when people don't realize they are talking to Native Americans. In some ways this is what the movies The Legend Of Billie Jack was about. It was about the treatment of Native Americans by white people. This forum isn't about social injustice but about climate change. Did Native Americans get screwed? They did. Not sure what I can do about that. It's very difficult to change the past and to right the wrongs. How do you do that? I don't have that answer. Sorry.
Edited on 15-03-2019 01:57
15-03-2019 01:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Longview wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.


What real data? Best I can figure, standardized recording didn't start until the 1950s. A few locations, doesn't really represent the entire planet very well. CO2 measurements started in 1958, single location. When I saw 'amplification', as an electronics guy, I'm thinking adding energy to a signal. But, the atmosphere isn't a circuit board. Only half the planet adding energy from the sun, other half doesn't go to sleep, so we can just ignore it. You are talking about very little increases (fractional degrees), yet the margin of error for the data used is huge, and spread over a considerable time span. Might work that way on virtual Earth, in a video game, but hardly possible in the real world.


We had a fairly broad spectrum of temperature readings from the 1880's onward. But there were very large gaps in the numbers. There were no readings from most of Africa, almost none from South America, none from the Pacific Islands and virtually NO sea temperatures even though the oceans cover 70% of the Earth.

Here is the real problem - what these "climate scientists" are claiming for areas of the US, Europe and the Arctic areas in fact are almost entirely lies.

Tony Heller wrote a search engine that works on daily newspapers from around the world. A very large data base is there. In particular, the Arctic Ice Pack has been claimed to be disappearing every 5 years or so since recording began in the 1800's. Don't look now, but it never disappeared and is presently almost at its all time measured high.

Most of the land temperature data has been completely destroyed in the climate prediction documents from NASA climate division so anyone that tries to use that stuff is very likely to end up with the same answers as NASA.

But if you look up these same temperatures out of the newspapers, the NASA and NOAA data are completely bogus.

Now it IS possible to use the data we do have if we could get NASA to actually publish the real data. Even though it is comparatively sparse the Weather Satellite records show us the effects of temperatures in the northern hemisphere and the reaction in the southern hemisphere, if you compare these with the Milankovitch Cycles and the solar cycles, you can get a fairly good idea of what the global data was by looking at the global temperature responses compared to the way it is presently reacting.

This would make a good Thesis paper though you have to start with honest data and I don't know if you can get any now that NASA and NOAA have gone out of their way to destroy it.


Weather satellites don't measure temperature, Wake.

They take pictures of clouds and storms. It's just an 'eye in the sky' to see where the storms are and how they're moving.

No satellite is capable of measuring the temperature of Earth. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Now, do you want to try to confuse frequency and amplitude again?


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2019 03:42
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Longview wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.


What real data? Best I can figure, standardized recording didn't start until the 1950s. A few locations, doesn't really represent the entire planet very well. CO2 measurements started in 1958, single location. When I saw 'amplification', as an electronics guy, I'm thinking adding energy to a signal. But, the atmosphere isn't a circuit board. Only half the planet adding energy from the sun, other half doesn't go to sleep, so we can just ignore it. You are talking about very little increases (fractional degrees), yet the margin of error for the data used is huge, and spread over a considerable time span. Might work that way on virtual Earth, in a video game, but hardly possible in the real world.


We had a fairly broad spectrum of temperature readings from the 1880's onward. But there were very large gaps in the numbers. There were no readings from most of Africa, almost none from South America, none from the Pacific Islands and virtually NO sea temperatures even though the oceans cover 70% of the Earth.

Here is the real problem - what these "climate scientists" are claiming for areas of the US, Europe and the Arctic areas in fact are almost entirely lies.

Tony Heller wrote a search engine that works on daily newspapers from around the world. A very large data base is there. In particular, the Arctic Ice Pack has been claimed to be disappearing every 5 years or so since recording began in the 1800's. Don't look now, but it never disappeared and is presently almost at its all time measured high.

Most of the land temperature data has been completely destroyed in the climate prediction documents from NASA climate division so anyone that tries to use that stuff is very likely to end up with the same answers as NASA.

But if you look up these same temperatures out of the newspapers, the NASA and NOAA data are completely bogus.

Now it IS possible to use the data we do have if we could get NASA to actually publish the real data. Even though it is comparatively sparse the Weather Satellite records show us the effects of temperatures in the northern hemisphere and the reaction in the southern hemisphere, if you compare these with the Milankovitch Cycles and the solar cycles, you can get a fairly good idea of what the global data was by looking at the global temperature responses compared to the way it is presently reacting.

This would make a good Thesis paper though you have to start with honest data and I don't know if you can get any now that NASA and NOAA have gone out of their way to destroy it.


Weather satellites don't measure temperature, Wake.

They take pictures of clouds and storms. It's just an 'eye in the sky' to see where the storms are and how they're moving.

No satellite is capable of measuring the temperature of Earth. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Now, do you want to try to confuse frequency and amplitude again?


It's sad how you ignore your own people. Some of us have a problem with what happened. There was simply nothing right about it. The past can't be changed but it does need to be reconciled with.
America has to face it's own demons. If not then it's no better than any other country. It's supposed to be different. It's supposed to be better.
It simply can't allow for people to be silenced. That can never be allowed for.
15-03-2019 04:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
James___ wrote:
It's sad how you ignore your own people.
Who's being ignored? You? Wake? Anyone else?
James___ wrote:
Some of us have a problem with what happened.
What happened? Void argument.
James___ wrote:
There was simply nothing right about it.
So it's wrong that something you aren't specifying happened happened??? WTF???
James___ wrote:
The past can't be changed but it does need to be reconciled with.

Reconcile what past? What does it need to be reconciled with and why??
James___ wrote:
America has to face it's own demons.

It has demons? Who are they? Where do they live? Have you seen them?
James___ wrote:
If not then it's no better than any other country.
Any other country in mind?
James___ wrote:
It's supposed to be different. It's supposed to be better.
Different from what? Better than what?
James___ wrote:
It simply can't allow for people to be silenced.
Who is being silenced? You? Me? Anyone else?
James___ wrote:
That can never be allowed for.

What if I lose power? I'm silenced here for the time being if I do. Is that not allowable?


WTF are you talking about, James??


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2019 05:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
It simply can't allow for people to be silenced. That can never be allowed for.

What about for poor grammar?



You don't know that ITN is Native American?
That's sad. I've yanked his chain on this before. I know what buttons to push.
Native Americans have been screwed. If I fock with Itn in here, it's a climate debate forum. My focking with him is about his understanding of science and climate change. He has to accept that.
With him being Native American, wrong forum to discuss social injustice in. I could go into more detail with you you guys about this but you probably don't know how bad life on reservations is.
To give you guys an idea, Native Americans were pushed onto the most dirt poor land there was. How can this be changed?
If you guys don't understand this then you don't know why Itn isn't a happy camper.
15-03-2019 05:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
Deleted repeat post.
Edited on 15-03-2019 05:12
15-03-2019 05:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote:
It simply can't allow for people to be silenced. That can never be allowed for.

What about for poor grammar?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2019 13:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote: You don't know that ITN is Native American?

I think he's more native American than Elizabeth Warren.

James___ wrote: I've yanked his chain on this before. I know what buttons to push.

I understand your intent. My question concerns why you don't leverage his experience.

I have to ask, are you incapable of learning from someone who does not share your Global Warming dogma?

James___ wrote: My focking with him is about his understanding of science and climate change. He has to accept that.

Regarding his understanding of science, I have read his posts as well and I don't see any errors. If I ask you to point out where he is mistaken, you change the subject. Would you mind copy-pasting his words that express science errors so that you and I can talk about it?

James___ wrote: With him being Native American, wrong forum to discuss social injustice in. I could go into more detail with you you guys about this but you probably don't know how bad life on reservations is.

How would your beef with Into the Night change if you were to learn that you are mistaken and that he is NOT native American and has never lived on a reservation?

James___ wrote: To give you guys an idea, Native Americans were pushed onto the most dirt poor land there was. How can this be changed?
If you guys don't understand this then you don't know why Itn isn't a happy camper.

This happened in Colombia and resulted in the FARC. Are you saying Into the Night is going to be trafficking in narcotics with squads of heavily armed insurgents?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2019 16:58
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.


Kind of off topic here but since atmospheric temperatures are related to the number of collisions that atmospheric gases have, can the same hold true for water? Basically slower moving water would be more excited because of friction than faster moving water.
Linear/angular momentum of a molecule would come into play here.

Water is complicated, A cup of water at say 27 C contains molecules across the entire liquid temperature span, and likely beyond.
I used to do this trick for the students at the university, where I
use a vacuum to boil a small volume of water into ice.
The vacuum pulls out all of the molecules which are above the
PVT point, at some point the the numbers all cross the triple point,
and the water goes from boiling to ice in the blink of an eye.



I think you might've just helped me to make a point that I've been trying to make/have considered, etc. In the scenario you described, why does the water freeze? Is it possibly conserving energy because it's less excited?
The experiment you mentioned might help to illustrate things. The temperature of the water is based on how excited the water is. Even with a vacuum, that would cause an opposing behavior in water. Instead of water expanding, it would do what it could to resist that, right? And the opposite of a gas is a solid.
If nothing else you helped me to feel better about everything.

The water freezes because the vacuum removes all the water molecules
that have enough energy to leave. At about 1/10 an atmosphere that means that
all the water molecules that remain already have less energy than it take
to maintain the liquid state.
15-03-2019 17:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Longview wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.


What real data? Best I can figure, standardized recording didn't start until the 1950s. A few locations, doesn't really represent the entire planet very well. CO2 measurements started in 1958, single location. When I saw 'amplification', as an electronics guy, I'm thinking adding energy to a signal. But, the atmosphere isn't a circuit board. Only half the planet adding energy from the sun, other half doesn't go to sleep, so we can just ignore it. You are talking about very little increases (fractional degrees), yet the margin of error for the data used is huge, and spread over a considerable time span. Might work that way on virtual Earth, in a video game, but hardly possible in the real world.


We had a fairly broad spectrum of temperature readings from the 1880's onward. But there were very large gaps in the numbers. There were no readings from most of Africa, almost none from South America, none from the Pacific Islands and virtually NO sea temperatures even though the oceans cover 70% of the Earth.

Here is the real problem - what these "climate scientists" are claiming for areas of the US, Europe and the Arctic areas in fact are almost entirely lies.

Tony Heller wrote a search engine that works on daily newspapers from around the world. A very large data base is there. In particular, the Arctic Ice Pack has been claimed to be disappearing every 5 years or so since recording began in the 1800's. Don't look now, but it never disappeared and is presently almost at its all time measured high.

Most of the land temperature data has been completely destroyed in the climate prediction documents from NASA climate division so anyone that tries to use that stuff is very likely to end up with the same answers as NASA.

But if you look up these same temperatures out of the newspapers, the NASA and NOAA data are completely bogus.

Now it IS possible to use the data we do have if we could get NASA to actually publish the real data. Even though it is comparatively sparse the Weather Satellite records show us the effects of temperatures in the northern hemisphere and the reaction in the southern hemisphere, if you compare these with the Milankovitch Cycles and the solar cycles, you can get a fairly good idea of what the global data was by looking at the global temperature responses compared to the way it is presently reacting.

This would make a good Thesis paper though you have to start with honest data and I don't know if you can get any now that NASA and NOAA have gone out of their way to destroy it.


Weather satellites don't measure temperature, Wake.

They take pictures of clouds and storms. It's just an 'eye in the sky' to see where the storms are and how they're moving.

No satellite is capable of measuring the temperature of Earth. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Now, do you want to try to confuse frequency and amplitude again?


It's sad how you ignore your own people. Some of us have a problem with what happened. There was simply nothing right about it. The past can't be changed but it does need to be reconciled with.
America has to face it's own demons. If not then it's no better than any other country. It's supposed to be different. It's supposed to be better.
It simply can't allow for people to be silenced. That can never be allowed for.
What in the hell does this have to do with the conversation? We were discussing science and you're perverting it to one of your personal vendettas? Next thing we know you'll be echoing that moron Nightmare who absolutely denies that the science of spectroscopy exists. To him, light - which is energy - isn't heat. By observing light you cannot make the transference of one type of energy to another. He is quite insane.

BTW - the Indians were not screwed. They chose to rebel against a colonial power instead of coexisting peacefully which is what the East Coast tribes did. They became as American as anyone else. Most of the Indians that were moved along the so-called Trail of Tears had fewer deaths on that trip than any normal movement of groups in those days. Of the 300,000 who were in the Gold Rush only 100,000 made it to California and half of those died in the first year. Most of the Indians that were resettled in Oklahoma became wealthy ranchers or farmers until the Dust Bowl years when they split for California.

If the "native Americans" decided to remain tribal and separate that was their own business that they are now destitute. The same exact thing is happening in Africa today. You either move forward with the times or you remain left behind.
15-03-2019 21:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.


Kind of off topic here but since atmospheric temperatures are related to the number of collisions that atmospheric gases have, can the same hold true for water? Basically slower moving water would be more excited because of friction than faster moving water.
Linear/angular momentum of a molecule would come into play here.

Water is complicated, A cup of water at say 27 C contains molecules across the entire liquid temperature span, and likely beyond.
I used to do this trick for the students at the university, where I
use a vacuum to boil a small volume of water into ice.
The vacuum pulls out all of the molecules which are above the
PVT point, at some point the the numbers all cross the triple point,
and the water goes from boiling to ice in the blink of an eye.



I think you might've just helped me to make a point that I've been trying to make/have considered, etc. In the scenario you described, why does the water freeze? Is it possibly conserving energy because it's less excited?
The experiment you mentioned might help to illustrate things. The temperature of the water is based on how excited the water is. Even with a vacuum, that would cause an opposing behavior in water. Instead of water expanding, it would do what it could to resist that, right? And the opposite of a gas is a solid.
If nothing else you helped me to feel better about everything.

The water freezes because the vacuum removes all the water molecules
that have enough energy to leave. At about 1/10 an atmosphere that means that
all the water molecules that remain already have less energy than it take
to maintain the liquid state.


PV=nRT. Go learn it, dude.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2019 21:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Longview wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.


What real data? Best I can figure, standardized recording didn't start until the 1950s. A few locations, doesn't really represent the entire planet very well. CO2 measurements started in 1958, single location. When I saw 'amplification', as an electronics guy, I'm thinking adding energy to a signal. But, the atmosphere isn't a circuit board. Only half the planet adding energy from the sun, other half doesn't go to sleep, so we can just ignore it. You are talking about very little increases (fractional degrees), yet the margin of error for the data used is huge, and spread over a considerable time span. Might work that way on virtual Earth, in a video game, but hardly possible in the real world.


We had a fairly broad spectrum of temperature readings from the 1880's onward. But there were very large gaps in the numbers. There were no readings from most of Africa, almost none from South America, none from the Pacific Islands and virtually NO sea temperatures even though the oceans cover 70% of the Earth.

Here is the real problem - what these "climate scientists" are claiming for areas of the US, Europe and the Arctic areas in fact are almost entirely lies.

Tony Heller wrote a search engine that works on daily newspapers from around the world. A very large data base is there. In particular, the Arctic Ice Pack has been claimed to be disappearing every 5 years or so since recording began in the 1800's. Don't look now, but it never disappeared and is presently almost at its all time measured high.

Most of the land temperature data has been completely destroyed in the climate prediction documents from NASA climate division so anyone that tries to use that stuff is very likely to end up with the same answers as NASA.

But if you look up these same temperatures out of the newspapers, the NASA and NOAA data are completely bogus.

Now it IS possible to use the data we do have if we could get NASA to actually publish the real data. Even though it is comparatively sparse the Weather Satellite records show us the effects of temperatures in the northern hemisphere and the reaction in the southern hemisphere, if you compare these with the Milankovitch Cycles and the solar cycles, you can get a fairly good idea of what the global data was by looking at the global temperature responses compared to the way it is presently reacting.

This would make a good Thesis paper though you have to start with honest data and I don't know if you can get any now that NASA and NOAA have gone out of their way to destroy it.


Weather satellites don't measure temperature, Wake.

They take pictures of clouds and storms. It's just an 'eye in the sky' to see where the storms are and how they're moving.

No satellite is capable of measuring the temperature of Earth. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Now, do you want to try to confuse frequency and amplitude again?


It's sad how you ignore your own people. Some of us have a problem with what happened. There was simply nothing right about it. The past can't be changed but it does need to be reconciled with.
America has to face it's own demons. If not then it's no better than any other country. It's supposed to be different. It's supposed to be better.
It simply can't allow for people to be silenced. That can never be allowed for.

What in the hell does this have to do with the conversation?

Nothing. But that doesn't concern James.
Wake wrote:
We were discussing science
Obviously he wasn't. You aren't either.
Wake wrote:
and you're perverting it to one of your personal vendettas?

Hey...sounds a bit like YOU, doesn't it Wake?
Wake wrote:
Next thing we know you'll be echoing that moron Nightmare who absolutely denies that the science of spectroscopy exists.
Personal vendetta statement.
It does, Wake. I've said so every time you make this stupid statement.
Wake wrote:
To him, light - which is energy - isn't heat.
Another personal vendetta statement. I have also made it quite clear several times to you that light IS heat, IF thermal energy results from absorption.
Wake wrote:
By observing light you cannot make the transference of one type of energy to another.

To observe light, Wake, you MUST convert one type of energy to another, else you can't observe light.
Wake wrote:
He is quite insane.
Another personal vendetta statement.
Wake wrote:
BTW - the Indians were not screwed.

Yeah, they were, Wake.
Wake wrote:
They chose to rebel against a colonial power

People tend to do that when you take their land and property and start killing them.
Wake wrote:
instead of coexisting peacefully

Would you if the government just took away your home and killed part of your family?
Wake wrote:
which is what the East Coast tribes did.
That they did, until they were attacked by President Jackson and his troops.
Wake wrote:
They became as American as anyone else.
They already were, Wake. They were born in what we now call America. That makes them Americans. Perhaps you don't understand this concept.
Wake wrote:
Most of the Indians that were moved along the so-called Trail of Tears had fewer deaths on that trip than any normal movement of groups in those days.
They lost a third of their population on that journey, Wake. That was AFTER they lost almost all their men (murdered). Those on the Trail of Tears were the elderly, the women, and the children.
Wake wrote:
Of the 300,000 who were in the Gold Rush only 100,000 made it to California and half of those died in the first year.
They didn't go to California, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Most of the Indians that were resettled in Oklahoma became wealthy ranchers or farmers until the Dust Bowl years when they split for California.

Nope. They are still in Oklahoma, Wake. They are not particularly wealthy ranchers and farmers. They are making some gains in the gaming industry though.
Wake wrote:
If the "native Americans" decided to remain tribal and separate that was their own business that they are now destitute.

So you support YOUR tribe, and consider any other tribe a nothing???

No, Wake. They were left with NOTHING. Their warriors were killed, their land was taken, their homes were looted, and they were driven west with NOTHING.

Despite this, they rebuilt their wealth to what it is today. They are not destitute.
Wake wrote:
You either move forward with the times or you remain left behind.

They have, Wake. You really don't know a whole lot about the Cherokee, do you?


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Our Future: The kids are right – we must act on climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CNN: Wind farms of the future may be underwater202-05-2019 02:51
O2C predicted to rise in the future?1622-04-2019 22:19
Climate change is a security threat. We must act now027-03-2019 15:52
Uncertain projections help to reveal the truth about future climate change719-03-2019 16:10
Thousands of scientists are backing the kids striking for climate change417-03-2019 19:03
Articles
Barack Obama: Securing Our Energy Future
▲ 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