Remember me
▼ Content

The Emissivity of the Earth



Page 1 of 212>
The Emissivity of the Earth12-02-2018 20:14
James__
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Am kind of tired of people in here making claims about this when it's already been calculated. This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.

Compared to the energy that the Earth's surface receives from the Sun, how much power comes from the inner melted core?

Very little. The Earth's surface emits about 503 watts per square meter (398.2 W/m2 as infrared radiation, 86.4 W/m2 as latent heat, and 18.4 W/m2 via conduction/convection), or about 260,000 terawatts over all of the Earth's surface (Trenberth 2009). The ultimate source of almost all of this energy is the Sun.

Estimates vary on how much heat crosses the core/mantle boundary, from 4 TW to 17 TW. Even the larger value is much, much smaller than the heat emitted by the Earth's surface. Estimates of the total heat flow from the interior of the Earth (core, mantle, crust) are much tighter, 46 TW ± 3 TW (Jaupart 2007) (cf 47 TW ± 2 TW (Davis 2010)). This is considerably more than the heat coming from the core, but it's still small compared to the Earth's total heat budget:

heat from interior of Earth.........46 TW
----------------------------- = ------------ = 0.02% ..............total.......................260,000 TW

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183235/how-much-heating-does-earth-inner-core-provide-to-the-surface

46 terrawatts comes from the Earth out of a total of 260,000 terrawatts. This is pretty much accepted.
This is why I consider what can change those values beyond CO2. CO2 does not account for why ice ages occur nor end. And what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2 a long time ago and started saying they are 95% certain that man has an impact on climate change. They do not state specifically what it is that man is doing. This is why only a 95% certainty.
This documentary is by scientists who do support AGW.

BBC 4 is not showing this anymore but this is on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcjSYYzv89M
Edited on 12-02-2018 20:35
12-02-2018 22:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James__ wrote:
Am kind of tired of people in here making claims about this when it's already been calculated. This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.

Compared to the energy that the Earth's surface receives from the Sun, how much power comes from the inner melted core?

Very little. The Earth's surface emits about 503 watts per square meter (398.2 W/m2 as infrared radiation, 86.4 W/m2 as latent heat, and 18.4 W/m2 via conduction/convection), or about 260,000 terawatts over all of the Earth's surface (Trenberth 2009). The ultimate source of almost all of this energy is the Sun.

Estimates vary on how much heat crosses the core/mantle boundary, from 4 TW to 17 TW. Even the larger value is much, much smaller than the heat emitted by the Earth's surface. Estimates of the total heat flow from the interior of the Earth (core, mantle, crust) are much tighter, 46 TW ± 3 TW (Jaupart 2007) (cf 47 TW ± 2 TW (Davis 2010)). This is considerably more than the heat coming from the core, but it's still small compared to the Earth's total heat budget:

heat from interior of Earth.........46 TW
----------------------------- = ------------ = 0.02% ..............total.......................260,000 TW

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183235/how-much-heating-does-earth-inner-core-provide-to-the-surface

46 terrawatts comes from the Earth out of a total of 260,000 terrawatts. This is pretty much accepted.
This is why I consider what can change those values beyond CO2. CO2 does not account for why ice ages occur nor end. And what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2 a long time ago and started saying they are 95% certain that man has an impact on climate change. They do not state specifically what it is that man is doing. This is why only a 95% certainty.
This documentary is by scientists who do support AGW.

BBC 4 is not showing this anymore but this is on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcjSYYzv89M


Of course man effects his environment. The question is how much and how. I think that we discussed this before - if the Earth's core which is about the diameter of he moon and about the temperature of the surface of the sun adds only some 0.02% to the energy being conducted off of this planet doesn't it seem a little silly that even if man was changing the atmosphere some 100 parts per million (somewhat questionable) that he could have any sort of MEASURABLE effect?

As I said man does effect his environment but only highly locally and not enough worth mentioning.
Edited on 12-02-2018 23:25
12-02-2018 23:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James__ wrote:
Am kind of tired of people in here making claims about this when it's already been calculated.

No, it has not.
James__ wrote:
This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.

Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'.
James__ wrote:
Compared to the energy that the Earth's surface receives from the Sun, how much power comes from the inner melted core?

Unknown. We know very little about the core. We don't even know the material it's made from.

It is believed the core is made up of uranium and other heavy elements and that it remains molten due to nuclear fission.

Rock is a good insulator. We can stand on a very thin crust atop molten iron and other components of lava and be quite comfortable.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2018 00:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
James__ wrote:
Am kind of tired of people in here making claims about this when it's already been calculated.

No, it has not.
James__ wrote:
This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.

Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'.
James__ wrote:
Compared to the energy that the Earth's surface receives from the Sun, how much power comes from the inner melted core?

Unknown. We know very little about the core. We don't even know the material it's made from.

It is believed the core is made up of uranium and other heavy elements and that it remains molten due to nuclear fission.

Rock is a good insulator. We can stand on a very thin crust atop molten iron and other components of lava and be quite comfortable.


And yet more words of wisdom from someone that apparently doesn't know that there are these things called "volcanoes" that vent core material from which it is possible to extrapolate both the core composite and its heat.

Hollowman strikes again.
13-02-2018 01:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James__ wrote:
Am kind of tired of people in here making claims about this when it's already been calculated.

No, it has not.
James__ wrote:
This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.

Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'.
James__ wrote:
Compared to the energy that the Earth's surface receives from the Sun, how much power comes from the inner melted core?

Unknown. We know very little about the core. We don't even know the material it's made from.

It is believed the core is made up of uranium and other heavy elements and that it remains molten due to nuclear fission.

Rock is a good insulator. We can stand on a very thin crust atop molten iron and other components of lava and be quite comfortable.


And yet more words of wisdom from someone that apparently doesn't know that there are these things called "volcanoes" that vent core material from which it is possible to extrapolate both the core composite and its heat.

Hollowman strikes again.


Volcanoes don't vent core material.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2018 02:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James__ wrote:
Am kind of tired of people in here making claims about this when it's already been calculated.

No, it has not.
James__ wrote:
This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.

Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'.
James__ wrote:
Compared to the energy that the Earth's surface receives from the Sun, how much power comes from the inner melted core?

Unknown. We know very little about the core. We don't even know the material it's made from.

It is believed the core is made up of uranium and other heavy elements and that it remains molten due to nuclear fission.

Rock is a good insulator. We can stand on a very thin crust atop molten iron and other components of lava and be quite comfortable.


And yet more words of wisdom from someone that apparently doesn't know that there are these things called "volcanoes" that vent core material from which it is possible to extrapolate both the core composite and its heat.

Hollowman strikes again.


Volcanoes don't vent core material.


The core is the layer below the mantle, farthest down into the earth. There is an outer core and an inner core. The outer core is extremely hot and is made mostly of molten (or melted) iron, which is called magma. It is about 1300 miles thick.

Hallowman demonstrates his knowledge yet again. Try again stupid.
13-02-2018 09:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James__ wrote:
Am kind of tired of people in here making claims about this when it's already been calculated.

No, it has not.
James__ wrote:
This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.

Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'.
James__ wrote:
Compared to the energy that the Earth's surface receives from the Sun, how much power comes from the inner melted core?

Unknown. We know very little about the core. We don't even know the material it's made from.

It is believed the core is made up of uranium and other heavy elements and that it remains molten due to nuclear fission.

Rock is a good insulator. We can stand on a very thin crust atop molten iron and other components of lava and be quite comfortable.


And yet more words of wisdom from someone that apparently doesn't know that there are these things called "volcanoes" that vent core material from which it is possible to extrapolate both the core composite and its heat.

Hollowman strikes again.


Volcanoes don't vent core material.


The core is the layer below the mantle, farthest down into the earth. There is an outer core and an inner core. The outer core is extremely hot and is made mostly of molten (or melted) iron, which is called magma. It is about 1300 miles thick.

Hallowman demonstrates his knowledge yet again. Try again stupid.

Volcanoes don't vent any core material. Magma is not core material.

Maybe you should've lived near a volcano like I have (actually, ON it!).


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2018 18:37
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Into the Night wrote: ... you should've lived near a volcano like I have (actually, ON it!).
I was on Mount Enumclaw & got a lovely profile view of the northwest slope of the volcano Mt. Tacoma(Rainier). I first noted with binoculars the steep slope of higher elevations of Tahoma. Then panning to the right, the binoculars showed the ever shallowing slope. Further, I panned to the right, but the slope never reached horizontal till I had panned all the way right..... to the dock areas of.... Tacoma. I finally realized that Mt. Tahoma reached all the way to the shores of the Salish Sea(Puget Sound). Yeah, the city of Tacoma is on low slopes of Mt. Tahoma. There must be slopes of Mt. Tahoma even lower & they must be... in the Salish Sea. Yup.... hundreds of thousands of people live on the slopes of Mt. Tahoma. Eruptions of Mt. Tahoma have occurred in the last thousands of years that have traveled to the lowlands along the Salish Sea. & not just the mud lahars. Those living in communities nearer to Mt. Tahoma than Tacoma are in major danger..... with citizens of Tacoma & Seattle in almost the same danger. I remember my dad taking our family on trips to Mt. Tahoma often in my youth. Once one of the roads we used to travel on, was taken out by a lahar..... that had traveled 4 miles on the slopes of Mt. Tahoma. It had been estimated that the quantity of lahar material in that one slide alone on Mt. Tahoma, had been the equivalent of the mass of material erupted from & collapsed in the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruptions.
Edited on 13-02-2018 18:41
13-02-2018 19:03
James__
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
@All,
When ITN said
James__ wrote:
This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.


Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'. [/quote]
he was rejecting science. Since all of his discussions are based on his perception of psychology, this basically means that he is in the wrong place. I think it's funny that he is married to litesong who allows for science. This is yin/yang as in the image below, light and night.

Wake,
We haven't discussed anything. If you would've watched the pro-climate change documentary that I asked litesong to watch or even read the post you would know that scientists are moving away from saying CO2. Yet in your post IMO that is what you alluded to, CO2 only.
Iceberg A68 might be a product of
NOAA wrote:
During the cold dark Antarctic winter, stratospheric ice clouds (PSCs, polar stratospheric clouds) form when temperatures drop below -78C. These clouds are responsible for chemical changes that promote production of chemically active chlorine and bromine.

That is to say something that destroys ozone. So Wake when you say that gases in our atmosphere can't change the environment, that would be one example that it's possible.
Another example is what
National Geographic wrote:
How is Earth's atmosphere losing its most important layer?
Today, there is widespread concern that the ozone layer is deteriorating due to the release of pollution containing the chemicals chlorine and bromine.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/

And why the ozone layer is important;
Rice University wrote:
Ozone is a gas in the atmosphere that protects everything living on the Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays from the Sun. Without the layer of ozone in the atmosphere, it would be very difficult for anything to survive on the surface.


http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/atmo/atmosphere/topics/ozone/o3.html

And Wake, I know you are not going to consider any of this. You should ask litesong why she doesn't like me. It's because I think CO2 is more an indicator of a warmer atmosphere such as frogs show the health of wetlands and river deltas. Also with how they say that the Earth's oceans are warming, it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.
@All, sorry about covering so much ground but with me, I do have my own opinions/thoughts which I haven't posted in this thread. Those I am pursuing on my own. If I am successful then certain parts of textbooks will be rewritten. That would tend to show that we don't know everything yet. This is why I routinely post that I believe that more research needs to be done. The problem with this is how much funding is sufficient ? This is because I believe that heat in our oceans needs to be followed to it's source if there is one. Some scientists say that there might be more than 10,000 hydrothermal vents warming the sea floor. If so then this heat would eventually find it's way into our atmosphere. At the same time other causes would be cited as the source of this heat.
Attached image:


Edited on 13-02-2018 19:05
13-02-2018 19:36
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James__ wrote:
@All,
When ITN said
James__ wrote:
This has little to do with climate change because it's value is known.


Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'.

he was rejecting science. Since all of his discussions are based on his perception of psychology, this basically means that he is in the wrong place. I think it's funny that he is married to litesong who allows for science. This is yin/yang as in the image below, light and night.

Wake,
We haven't discussed anything. If you would've watched the pro-climate change documentary that I asked litesong to watch or even read the post you would know that scientists are moving away from saying CO2. Yet in your post IMO that is what you alluded to, CO2 only.
Iceberg A68 might be a product of
NOAA wrote:
During the cold dark Antarctic winter, stratospheric ice clouds (PSCs, polar stratospheric clouds) form when temperatures drop below -78C. These clouds are responsible for chemical changes that promote production of chemically active chlorine and bromine.

That is to say something that destroys ozone. So Wake when you say that gases in our atmosphere can't change the environment, that would be one example that it's possible.
Another example is what
National Geographic wrote:
How is Earth's atmosphere losing its most important layer?
Today, there is widespread concern that the ozone layer is deteriorating due to the release of pollution containing the chemicals chlorine and bromine.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/

And why the ozone layer is important;
Rice University wrote:
Ozone is a gas in the atmosphere that protects everything living on the Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays from the Sun. Without the layer of ozone in the atmosphere, it would be very difficult for anything to survive on the surface.


http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/atmo/atmosphere/topics/ozone/o3.html

And Wake, I know you are not going to consider any of this. You should ask litesong why she doesn't like me. It's because I think CO2 is more an indicator of a warmer atmosphere such as frogs show the health of wetlands and river deltas. Also with how they say that the Earth's oceans are warming, it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.
@All, sorry about covering so much ground but with me, I do have my own opinions/thoughts which I haven't posted in this thread. Those I am pursuing on my own. If I am successful then certain parts of textbooks will be rewritten. That would tend to show that we don't know everything yet. This is why I routinely post that I believe that more research needs to be done. The problem with this is how much funding is sufficient ? This is because I believe that heat in our oceans needs to be followed to it's source if there is one. Some scientists say that there might be more than 10,000 hydrothermal vents warming the sea floor. If so then this heat would eventually find it's way into our atmosphere. At the same time other causes would be cited as the source of this heat.[/quote]

James - how many times do we have to say this - there is no ozone production north or south of the magnetic poles. And there is no ozone formed in the absence of sunlight. Where is this sunlight in mid-winter when polar clouds are dropping below -78C?
13-02-2018 19:38
James__
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Wake,
You're one of the reasons why I find it a waste of time to post in here. You just can't get over yourself, can you ?
Edited on 13-02-2018 19:48
13-02-2018 19:51
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
James wrote:
...it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.


When are people going to stop pointing towards recent hurricanes as proof of warming? The numbers below show quite the opposite! Here's your top 25 James.
Attached image:


Edited on 13-02-2018 19:56
13-02-2018 20:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James__ wrote:
Wake,
You're one of the reasons why I find it a waste of time to post in here. You just can't get over yourself, can you ?


James - are you denying that in the winter you don't have sunlight in the polar regions and hence don't have ozone generation? Where's that old "hole in the ozone" situated?

Why do you take any disagreement with you as an attack?

Are you planning on living beyond the magnetic poles and so are worried you may not have protection against the majority of cosmic rays?

What I'm saying is that the Earth is how the Earth is. Making up some manner in which it is that way with no effective knowledge or evidence is nothing more than speculation.
13-02-2018 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James__ wrote:
@All, when ITN wrote
Into the Night wrote:
Climate doesn't have a value. There is no number associated with 'climate'.

he was rejecting science.

No, I am rejecting the idea that climate has a single value of any kind. Perhaps you should look up what 'weather' is.
James__ wrote:
...deleted Mantras 13...psychobabble...irrelevant conspiracy theories...4...
Iceberg A68 might be a product of
NOAA wrote:
During the cold dark Antarctic winter, stratospheric ice clouds (PSCs, polar stratospheric clouds) form when temperatures drop below -78C. These clouds are responsible for chemical changes that promote production of chemically active chlorine and bromine.

Here NOAA is showing it's propaganda again and denying science. No polar clouds produce chlorine or bromine. Such clouds are ice; in other words, plain old water.
James__ wrote:
That is to say something that destroys ozone.
Ozone destroys itself. Sunlight also destroys ozone (and creates it!). See the Chapman cycle.
James__ wrote:
So Wake when you say that gases in our atmosphere can't change the environment, that would be one example that it's possible.

You have shown any example of a gas has changed the environment.
James__ wrote:
...deleted Holy Quotes and Links... Also with how they say that the Earth's oceans are warming,
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean. Not enough thermometers.
James__ wrote:
it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet.
Ocean water affects the atmosphere above it literally within hours. See meteorology.
James__ wrote:
I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that.

There is nothing unusual about hurricane activity in 2017. See historical data at the National Hurricane Center.
James__ wrote:
Their size and intensity is unusual
Nothing unusual about either.
James__ wrote:
when they happen so close together.
Nothing unusual about that, either.
James__ wrote:
Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.
...deleted the usual pipe dream...

Heat is not 'in' anything. The hurricane (and all storms) ARE heat.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-02-2018 21:46
13-02-2018 21:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James__ wrote:
Wake,
You're one of the reasons why I find it a waste of time to post in here. You just can't get over yourself, can you ?


What? Can't handle the truth. See the Chapman cycle.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2018 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
...it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.


When are people going to stop pointing towards recent hurricanes as proof of warming? The numbers below show quite the opposite! Here's your top 25 James.


Bingo. Thank you.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2018 22:46
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
...it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.


When are people going to stop pointing towards recent hurricanes as proof of warming? The numbers below show quite the opposite! Here's your top 25 James.


Bingo. Thank you.


One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes. The average year with 4 or more major hurricanes is 1946.
14-02-2018 04:08
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes....
////////-
litesong wrote: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major..... cyclones in Philippines:
A few years ago, 4 of the 10 worst cyclones hitting the country, occurred in the last 10 years.
14-02-2018 04:59
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
litesong wrote:
[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes....
////////-
litesong wrote: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major..... cyclones in Philippines:
A few years ago, 4 of the 10 worst cyclones hitting the country, occurred in the last 10 years.


What's your point? It's a local event. We're going to wind up 10 degrees below average for February here in Iowa. Ice age? hell no, another local event.
Edited on 14-02-2018 05:02
14-02-2018 05:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes....
////////-
litesong wrote: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major..... cyclones in Philippines:
A few years ago, 4 of the 10 worst cyclones hitting the country, occurred in the last 10 years.


What's your point? It's a local event. We're going to wind up 10 degrees below average for February here in Iowa. Ice age? hell no, another local event.


I don't think litebeer has any point other than to spout random numbers as statistics as if it were a solemn duty to perform.


The Parrot Killer
14-02-2018 20:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin(& rottin) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: I don't think litesong has any point other than to spout random numbers...
Of course, they aren't random numbers. If they were random numbers, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin(& rottin) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wouldn't continually say they were random. That contention would be true & "badnight" can't abide with truth.
Meanwhile, FAB
(2) has non-randomly extended its life to 190 STRAIGHT days of over-temperatures on the High Arctic. Presently, FAB
(2) is 12degC over-temperature & is "locally" affecting the vast 3 week+ system of similar temperature weather, spanning from all of Canada over the North Pole to siberia, russia, china & some countries west of china.
15-02-2018 01:01
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
...it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.


When are people going to stop pointing towards recent hurricanes as proof of warming? The numbers below show quite the opposite! Here's your top 25 James.


Weather.com disagrees with you. This was 2/3rd's of the way through it. 2017 was also one of only 6 years that had 2 or more Category 5 hurricanes. The 2 that I mentioned were both Category 5 and were very destructive as well.
The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season is now among the top 10 all-time most active seasons on record, thanks to a frenetic stretch of long-lived, destructive hurricanes from mid-August through September.

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2017-atlantic-hurricane-season-one-of-busiest-september
15-02-2018 01:30
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes....
////////-
litesong wrote: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major..... cyclones in Philippines:
A few years ago, 4 of the 10 worst cyclones hitting the country, occurred in the last 10 years.


What's your point? It's a local event. We're going to wind up 10 degrees below average for February here in Iowa. Ice age? hell no, another local event.


This could be because the Arctic is warming. I pointed that out a while ago.
The link is to Aalesund, Norway's weather for February 2018. It was warm to say the least. Why I mention this is because most likely this warmth flows into the Arctic. Aalesund is on the Atlantic coast of Norway.
And GasGuzzler, my concerns are a bit different than everyone else's. I tend to think that ozone depletion was what caused the atmospheric warming which has basically stopped as ozone depletion has about stopped.
The problem now would be the glaciers that were melted. This allows for tectonic plates to lift. That might be what's warming the oceans now.
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would be a start towards showing that CO2 encourages ozone to occur in a way that differs from how scientists currently consider it. What Wake missed when he posted where ozone occurs naturally is that does support my theory.
So with me I am the only person in here who says ozone depletion. The ozone layer was reduced to where about only 30% of it was left. At the same time no scientist mentioned how much w/m^2 of UV-B was allowed into our atmosphere. They usually say only 5% which anyone who has researched ozone research online knows the 70% loss has been accepted.
So am on my own with my own opinion. And if heat is being released from the sea floor, we can expect more warming when that heat reaches the atmosphere.
The Greenland sea abyss has enough heat in it to raise the air temperature over Europe by 7.2° F. Kind of what I am watching. That will help to routinely displace Polar Vortexs on a more frequent basis. Then the heat will go off into space :-)
15-02-2018 01:47
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
...it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.


When are people going to stop pointing towards recent hurricanes as proof of warming? The numbers below show quite the opposite! Here's your top 25 James.


Weather.com disagrees with you. This was 2/3rd's of the way through it. 2017 was also one of only 6 years that had 2 or more Category 5 hurricanes. The 2 that I mentioned were both Category 5 and were very destructive as well.
The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season is now among the top 10 all-time most active seasons on record, thanks to a frenetic stretch of long-lived, destructive hurricanes from mid-August through September.

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2017-atlantic-hurricane-season-one-of-busiest-september


Couple things here...
1. Are you only talking about land falling Cat 5s? If you're making a case for increased energy, doesn't matter if they make landfall or not. My numbers were total hurricanes for those years.

2. 2017 was no doubt a busy and destructive tropical cyclone season. It would end up tied for 5th most active. 2017 tied for only 5th with............1936, 81 years ago! There is no case for stronger/more numerous hurricanes as evidence of warming.
15-02-2018 02:37
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed:
litesong wrote:
[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes....
////////-
litesong wrote: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major..... cyclones in Philippines:
A few years ago, 4 of the 10 worst cyclones hitting the country, occurred in the last 10 years.
What's your point? It's a local event.

What ain't local events:
2017 was the warmest non-El Nino year on record.
The year 2017 was the 41st consecutive year that the global land/ocean temperature was above the 20th century average. (In addition 395+ straight months have been over the 20th century average).
The top six warmest years on record have all occurred since 2010.
So far this century, the annual global average temperature has been broken five times.
The annual global land/ocean temperature has increased at a rate of 0.07 deg. C. per decade since 1880. However, the average rate increase is twice as much since 1980.
Nine of the top 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2005.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/noaa-releases-their-global-temperature-data-for-2017/70003936
Edited on 15-02-2018 03:15
15-02-2018 03:06
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed:
litesong wrote:
[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes....
////////-
litesong wrote: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major..... cyclones in Philippines:
A few years ago, 4 of the 10 worst cyclones hitting the country, occurred in the last 10 years.
What's your point? It's a local event.

What ain't a local event:
2017 was the warmest non-El Nino year on record.
The year 2017 was the 41st consecutive year that the global land/ocean temperature was above the 20th century average. (In addition 395+ straight months have been over the 20th century average).
The top six warmest years on record have all occurred since 2010.
So far this century, the annual global average temperature has been broken five times.
The annual global land/ocean temperature has increased at a rate of 0.07 deg. C. per decade since 1880. However, the average rate increase is twice as much since 1980.
Nine of the top 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2005.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/noaa-releases-their-global-temperature-data-for-2017/70003936

NOAA has been caught lying. Just like in a court of law, a liar is not credible. Find a credible source, otherwise it's just random numbers.
15-02-2018 04:20
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
litesong wrote:
Other weather services around the world have the same conclusions as NOAA.


It'll be a tough read for you, but give it a go. I know you won't believe a word of it, which is fine. I just want to know why you think, and how you know the author is lying.

http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/
Edited on 15-02-2018 04:20
15-02-2018 05:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
...it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.


When are people going to stop pointing towards recent hurricanes as proof of warming? The numbers below show quite the opposite! Here's your top 25 James.


Weather.com disagrees with you. This was 2/3rd's of the way through it. 2017 was also one of only 6 years that had 2 or more Category 5 hurricanes. The 2 that I mentioned were both Category 5 and were very destructive as well.
The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season is now among the top 10 all-time most active seasons on record, thanks to a frenetic stretch of long-lived, destructive hurricanes from mid-August through September.



Weather.com does not store the historical hurricane data.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 05:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major hurricanes....
////////-
litesong wrote: One more fun fact about the top 25 years for major..... cyclones in Philippines:
A few years ago, 4 of the 10 worst cyclones hitting the country, occurred in the last 10 years.


What's your point? It's a local event. We're going to wind up 10 degrees below average for February here in Iowa. Ice age? hell no, another local event.


This could be because the Arctic is warming. I pointed that out a while ago.
The link is to Aalesund, Norway's weather for February 2018. It was warm to say the least. Why I mention this is because most likely this warmth flows into the Arctic. Aalesund is on the Atlantic coast of Norway.
And GasGuzzler, my concerns are a bit different than everyone else's. I tend to think that ozone depletion was what caused the atmospheric warming which has basically stopped as ozone depletion has about stopped.

The ozone has not been depleted.
James___ wrote:
The problem now would be the glaciers that were melted.

Glaciers have been melting since the last ice age. This is normal.
James___ wrote:
This allows for tectonic plates to lift.

Tectonic plates life and move because of neighboring tectonic plates shoving against them. ALL tectonic plates move because of convection in the mantle.
James___ wrote:
That might be what's warming the oceans now.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans.
James___ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would be a start towards showing that CO2 encourages ozone to occur in a way that differs from how scientists currently consider it.

CO2 and O3 have nothing to do with each other.
James___ wrote:
What Wake missed when he posted where ozone occurs naturally is that does support my theory.

Wake happens to be wrong about the ozone as well. Ozone occurs whenever energy is absorbed by oxygen. Sunlight can certainly be part of that energy. Ozone forms at the poles too, but only during the summer of that pole (there is no Sun in winter at a pole).
James___ wrote:
So with me I am the only person in here who says ozone depletion.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.
James___ wrote:
The ozone layer was reduced to where about only 30% of it was left.

Nope. It's the same as it always was. The level of oxygen hasn't changed, and the Sun hasn't appreciably changed its output spectrum.
James___ wrote:
At the same time no scientist mentioned how much w/m^2 of UV-B was allowed into our atmosphere.

The same as always. There was no need to mention it because nothing has changed.
James___ wrote:
They usually say only 5% which anyone who has researched ozone research online knows the 70% loss has been accepted.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.
James___ wrote:
So am on my own with my own opinion.

No, there are others that believe man is somehow able to destroy the ozone layer.
James___ wrote:
And if heat is being released from the sea floor,

Deep water is extremely stable in temperature and quite cold. Warm water rises, just like warm air. The warmest water is on the top of the ocean water already.
James___ wrote:
we can expect more warming when that heat reaches the atmosphere.

The Sun warms the land faster than ocean water. See the specific heat of water. This is also what causes the offshore breeze in the mornings. Many a fishing fleet depends on those breezes.

The land also cools off at night faster than the ocean water (same reason). This causes the onshore breezes so common in the afternoon and evenings. Handy for the returning fishing fleet.

In brief, oceans may help keep air above them warmer, but ONLY if they are warmer than the air above it. In the mornings, oceans are generally COLDER than the land. They cannot heat the land at that time.
James___ wrote:
The Greenland sea abyss has enough heat in it

Heat is not 'in' anything. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not the energy itself.
James___ wrote:
to raise the air temperature over Europe by 7.2° F.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Europe.
James___ wrote:
Kind of what I am watching.

Not possible to watch it.
James___ wrote:
That will help to routinely displace Polar Vortexs on a more frequent basis.

Polar highs are always a predominant feature of poles. The air is coldest there. That high is caused by warm air that has already risen at lower altitudes, moving to the poles, then sinking.

Sinking air causes high pressure. That's what the 'H' on a weather map means.

The news media came up with the buzzword 'polar vortex'. It is just the predominant high pressure normal at the poles. See information about global convection cells. The jet stream itself is caused by them.
James___ wrote:
Then the heat will go off into space :-)

Heat is not 'in' anything.

The Earth heats the surrounding space from all substances regardless of weather or latitude. Anything that is warmer than absolute zero radiates light (electromagnetic energy). That includes the oceans, the land, the air, the plants, the houses, and you.

Ozone is not being depleted. See the Chapman cycle for how ozone is created and destroyed by absorption of different frequencies of light from the Sun. That cycle is what causes the temperature inversion of the stratosphere.

None of it stops radiant energy from leaving the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 06:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
...it might be that the heat they will be releasing hasn't reached the atmosphere yet. If not then it's possible that it will get warmer yet and more humid. I think the 2 massive hurricanes this year (2017, okay?) that hit the Gulf of Mexico tend to support that. Their size and intensity is unusual when they happen so close together. Kind of shows that there was a lot of heat in both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to feed them.


When are people going to stop pointing towards recent hurricanes as proof of warming? The numbers below show quite the opposite! Here's your top 25 James.


Weather.com disagrees with you. This was 2/3rd's of the way through it. 2017 was also one of only 6 years that had 2 or more Category 5 hurricanes. The 2 that I mentioned were both Category 5 and were very destructive as well.
The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season is now among the top 10 all-time most active seasons on record, thanks to a frenetic stretch of long-lived, destructive hurricanes from mid-August through September.

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2017-atlantic-hurricane-season-one-of-busiest-september


Couple things here...
1. Are you only talking about land falling Cat 5s? If you're making a case for increased energy, doesn't matter if they make landfall or not. My numbers were total hurricanes for those years.

2. 2017 was no doubt a busy and destructive tropical cyclone season. It would end up tied for 5th most active. 2017 tied for only 5th with............1936, 81 years ago! There is no case for stronger/more numerous hurricanes as evidence of warming.


A few selected years with Cat 4 or larger hurricanes that struck the United States:

1967 five storms, 26 total storms (Cat 1 or higher)
1968 ZERO storms, 16 total storms

1987 ZERO storms, 14 total storms
1988 four storms, 19 total storms

1999 five storms, 16 total storms
2000 two storms, 19 total storms

2005 five storms, 16 total storms
2006 ZERO storms, 10 total storms

2008 five storms, 17 total storms
2009 1 storm, 11 total storms

2010 four storms, 21 total storms
2011 two storms, 20 total storms

Note adjacent years.
Note the pattern has no correlation to CO2 content as measured by Mauna Loa.
There is no global temperature data to run a correlation analysis against.

Sources: National Hurricane Center, Mauna Loa Observatory


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 06:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" gushed: NOAA has been caught lying.
..... says someone named "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin". "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzlin" always demeans science because it took no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in its worthless hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Other weather services around the world have the same conclusions as NOAA.


Because they have the same source for their 'data': the IPCC.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 14:51
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
james__ wrote:....what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2....
What litesong DOES understand is that AGW denier liar whiners TRY(unsuccessfully) to twist AGW data on this webcyst(correct spelling). AGW isn't just CO2, but all AGW GHGs, which are increasing... plus their positive feedbacks, which also are increasing.
james has his own pet theory. But at no point, can he prove that his pet theory effects are increasing warming all over the Earth bio-sphere.
Edited on 15-02-2018 14:54
15-02-2018 16:05
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
litesong wrote:
james__ wrote:....what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2....
What litesong DOES understand is that AGW denier liar whiners TRY(unsuccessfully) to twist AGW data on this webcyst(correct spelling). AGW isn't just CO2, but all AGW GHGs, which are increasing... plus their positive feedbacks, which also are increasing.
james has his own pet theory. But at no point, can he prove that his pet theory effects are increasing warming all over the Earth bio-sphere.


litesong,
Some of it might be possible. Kind of why I say more research is needed. To believe that we have all of the answers is to make a wrong assumption. The image below compares the temperature Jan. through Mar. between Ames, Iowa and Aalesund, Norway. In January and February the way to the Arctic was warmer than in the heartland of the U.S.
What some people might not understand is that waste heat and ozone depletion are effects of industrialization and can increase temperatures in the northern hemisphere.
It is well known that melting glaciers allow for tectonic plates like the North American and Eurasian Plates north of 45° north latitude to lift. This is why I believe that more research is needed to find out if the warming in our oceans can be caused by hydrothermal vents and deep faults. If all sources of heat are not known then we don't have a complete picture.
And litesong, what I would be suggesting by this is that if our atmosphere warms by depletion of the ozone layer and the heat put out by industrialization then vents and faults in the sea floor can compound this warming. That's something that really hasn't been considered. With my atmospheric chemistry experiment, if it is successful then I could promote this type of research.
And with this image of the temperatures in Ames, Iowa and Aalesund, Norway, heat flowing into the Arctic can send cold air down into both the U.S. and Russia. This is a basic example of thermodynamics.
It won't let me attach the image I want to so here is a link to it and the 2 following links are to the webpage the info came from.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Kqhwq6QwSshZqVaq2

For February, 2018 Aalesund, Norway and Ames, Iowa

Aalesund, Norway
https://weatherspark.com/m/54943/2/Average-Weather-in-February-in-%C3%85lesund-Norway

Ames, Iowa
https://weatherspark.com/m/10339/2/Average-Weather-in-February-in-Ames-Iowa-United-States
Edited on 15-02-2018 16:09
15-02-2018 20:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James___ wrote:
litesong wrote:
james__ wrote:....what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2....
What litesong DOES understand is that AGW denier liar whiners TRY(unsuccessfully) to twist AGW data on this webcyst(correct spelling). AGW isn't just CO2, but all AGW GHGs, which are increasing... plus their positive feedbacks, which also are increasing.
james has his own pet theory. But at no point, can he prove that his pet theory effects are increasing warming all over the Earth bio-sphere.
litesong,
Some of it might be possible. In January and February the way to the Arctic was warmer than in the heartland of the U.S.
waste heat and ozone depletion.... hydrothermal vents and deep faults. If all sources of heat are not known then we don't have a complete picture.... my atmospheric chemistry experiment, if it is successful...
All of it IS possible & probable. All the AGW denier liar whiners got ego with no end, believing themselves better than millennia of scientists. Some even believe they can threaten with impunity. All my info about the High Arctic says the same thing as you do, yet is more wide ranging & longer term. I'm glad you don't read it, & learn something, as all the other AGW denier liar whiners don't, either. Until you prove your volcano vents have increased compared to the last thousands of years, you got nuthin'. You haven't even begun on that.
Edited on 15-02-2018 20:46
15-02-2018 21:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James___ wrote:
litesong wrote:
james__ wrote:....what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2....
What litesong DOES understand is that AGW denier liar whiners TRY(unsuccessfully) to twist AGW data on this webcyst(correct spelling). AGW isn't just CO2, but all AGW GHGs, which are increasing... plus their positive feedbacks, which also are increasing.
james has his own pet theory. But at no point, can he prove that his pet theory effects are increasing warming all over the Earth bio-sphere.


litesong,
Some of it might be possible. Kind of why I say more research is needed. To believe that we have all of the answers is to make a wrong assumption. The image below compares the temperature Jan. through Mar. between Ames, Iowa and Aalesund, Norway. In January and February the way to the Arctic was warmer than in the heartland of the U.S.

Aalesund, Norway is not the temperature of the Arctic. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Arctic. The temperature of Ames, Iowa is not the temperature of the U.S. heartland. It is not possible to measure that temperature either.

The temperature measured in a city does not tell you anything about the temperature just a mile or so away.

Observed temperature gradients can be quite steep. I have seen gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile more than once.

James___ wrote:
What some people might not understand is that waste heat and ozone depletion are effects of industrialization and can increase temperatures in the northern hemisphere.[quote]The ozone is not being depleted. No gas has the power to warm the planet. The furnace of a factory is not going to be enough to make any difference when compared to the effects of weather and seasonal changes.
James___ wrote:
It is well known that melting glaciers allow for tectonic plates like the North American and Eurasian Plates north of 45° north latitude to lift.

Nope. It isn't. Just how big and heavy do you think glaciers are??
James___ wrote:
This is why I believe that more research is needed to find out if the warming in our oceans

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans.
James___ wrote:
can be caused by hydrothermal vents and deep faults.

Just how much volcanic activity do you think is going on in the oceans??
James___ wrote:
If all sources of heat are not known then we don't have a complete picture.

Volcanoes move, they change their state from active to dormant, to extinct. New ones form all the time. You will never know where they all are or how much energy the put into the ocean water.

There is a lot less underwater volcanic activity then you think. It takes a LONG time to heat that much water too, even with a volcano.

James___ wrote:
And litesong, what I would be suggesting by this is that if our atmosphere warms by depletion of the ozone layer

The ozone layer is not being depleted. Ozone has no capability to warm or cool the planet.
James___ wrote:
and the heat put out by industrialization then vents and faults in the sea floor can compound this warming.

So I guess warming by the Sun doesn't matter. Ever wonder why the polar seas are colder than the seas around the equator?
James___ wrote:
That's something that really hasn't been considered.

Probably because it ignores mathematics and the known properties of ozone (it's a gas that has actually been quite well studied).
James___ wrote:
With my atmospheric chemistry experiment, if it is successful then I could promote this type of research.

Again, your pipe dream.
James___ wrote:
And with this image of the temperatures in Ames, Iowa and Aalesund, Norway, heat flowing into the Arctic can send cold air down into both the U.S. and Russia.

Heat flowing into the Arctic DOES often send cold air southwards along the surface. It warms up as it travels southward too, according to the local weather conditions.
James___ wrote:
This is a basic example of thermodynamics.
...deleted Holy Links...

The cold air moving south from the Arctic certainly does, but you are also ignoring the effects of the Sun, the effects of weather and seasons, the known properties of ozone, and the Chapman cycle.


The Parrot Killer
16-02-2018 20:40
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
litesong wrote:
James___ wrote:
litesong wrote:
james__ wrote:....what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2....
What litesong DOES understand is that AGW denier liar whiners TRY(unsuccessfully) to twist AGW data on this webcyst(correct spelling). AGW isn't just CO2, but all AGW GHGs, which are increasing... plus their positive feedbacks, which also are increasing.
james has his own pet theory. But at no point, can he prove that his pet theory effects are increasing warming all over the Earth bio-sphere.
litesong,
Some of it might be possible. In January and February the way to the Arctic was warmer than in the heartland of the U.S.
waste heat and ozone depletion.... hydrothermal vents and deep faults. If all sources of heat are not known then we don't have a complete picture.... my atmospheric chemistry experiment, if it is successful...
All of it IS possible & probable. All the AGW denier liar whiners got ego with no end, believing themselves better than millennia of scientists. Some even believe they can threaten with impunity. All my info about the High Arctic says the same thing as you do, yet is more wide ranging & longer term. I'm glad you don't read it, & learn something, as all the other AGW denier liar whiners don't, either. Until you prove your volcano vents have increased compared to the last thousands of years, you got nuthin'. You haven't even begun on that.



litesong,
[quote]Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research wrote:
Recent warming of the Greenland Sea Deep Water is about ten times higher than warming rates estimated for the global ocean. Scientists analyzed temperature data from 1950 to 2010 in the abyssal Greenland Sea, which is an ocean area located just to the south of the Arctic Ocean.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm


[quote]Nature. 2003 Jan 16;421(6920):252-6.
Discovery of abundant hydrothermal venting on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge in the Arctic Ocean.
and
Abstract
Submarine hydrothermal venting along mid-ocean ridges is an important contributor to ridge thermal structure, and the global distribution of such vents has implications for heat and mass fluxes from the Earth's crust and mantle
http://https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12529639

Why is it you do not think that climate change can be a compound problem ? If you studied more about ice ages then you would understand that they are primarily a northern hemisphere event. When the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms.

[quote]Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen wrote:

The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

This is why I am pursuing some specific research. Also CO2 was not responsible for the warming that ended the last ice age. This is now known and was the primary reason given for the climate change that we've been experiencing. I'll show you the thread I posted on this topic. Everyone ignored it.
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-link-is-to-an-article-in-the-daily-mail-about-asteroids-and-the-last-ice-age-d6-e1694.php

I always thought a 50% rise in CO2 was a bit steep just to say warming water released that much CO2. Still, you will hold your view because like the others, why take the time to consider other research ?
Enjoy :-)
Edited on 16-02-2018 20:48
16-02-2018 20:47
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
litesong wrote:
James___ wrote:
litesong wrote:
[quote] james__ wrote:....what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2....
What litesong DOES understand is that AGW denier liar whiners TRY(unsuccessfully) to twist AGW data on this webcyst(correct spelling). AGW isn't just CO2, but all AGW GHGs, which are increasing... plus their positive feedbacks, which also are increasing.
james has his own pet theory. But at no point, can he prove that his pet theory effects are increasing warming all over the Earth bio-sphere.
litesong,
Some of it might be possible. In January and February the way to the Arctic was warmer than in the heartland of the U.S.
waste heat and ozone depletion.... hydrothermal vents and deep faults. If all sources of heat are not known then we don't have a complete picture.... my atmospheric chemistry experiment, if it is successful...
All of it IS possible & probable. All the AGW denier liar whiners got ego with no end, believing themselves better than millennia of scientists. Some even believe they can threaten with impunity. All my info about the High Arctic says the same thing as you do, yet is more wide ranging & longer term. I'm glad you don't read it, & learn something, as all the other AGW denier liar whiners don't, either. Until you prove your volcano vents have increased compared to the last thousands of years, you got nuthin'. You haven't even begun on that.



litesong,
Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research wrote:
Recent warming of the Greenland Sea Deep Water is about ten times higher than warming rates estimated for the global ocean. Scientists analyzed temperature data from 1950 to 2010 in the abyssal Greenland Sea, which is an ocean area located just to the south of the Arctic Ocean.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm


[quote]Nature. 2003 Jan 16;421(6920):252-6.
Discovery of abundant hydrothermal venting on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge in the Arctic Ocean.
and
Abstract
Submarine hydrothermal venting along mid-ocean ridges is an important contributor to ridge thermal structure, and the global distribution of such vents has implications for heat and mass fluxes from the Earth's crust and mantle

http://https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12529639

Why is it you do not think that climate change can be a compound problem ? If you studied more about ice ages then you would understand that they are primarily a northern hemisphere event. When the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms.

[quote]Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen wrote:

The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


So what you're saying is that you agree with litebrain that 3 weeks of warm weather equals climate change.

The weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.
16-02-2018 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James___ wrote:
litesong wrote:
James___ wrote:
litesong wrote:
[quote] james__ wrote:....what litesong doesn't understand there are other ways that man can influence the environment. If they check, scientists stopped saying CO2....
What litesong DOES understand is that AGW denier liar whiners TRY(unsuccessfully) to twist AGW data on this webcyst(correct spelling). AGW isn't just CO2, but all AGW GHGs, which are increasing... plus their positive feedbacks, which also are increasing.
james has his own pet theory. But at no point, can he prove that his pet theory effects are increasing warming all over the Earth bio-sphere.
litesong,
Some of it might be possible. In January and February the way to the Arctic was warmer than in the heartland of the U.S.
waste heat and ozone depletion.... hydrothermal vents and deep faults. If all sources of heat are not known then we don't have a complete picture.... my atmospheric chemistry experiment, if it is successful...
All of it IS possible & probable. All the AGW denier liar whiners got ego with no end, believing themselves better than millennia of scientists. Some even believe they can threaten with impunity. All my info about the High Arctic says the same thing as you do, yet is more wide ranging & longer term. I'm glad you don't read it, & learn something, as all the other AGW denier liar whiners don't, either. Until you prove your volcano vents have increased compared to the last thousands of years, you got nuthin'. You haven't even begun on that.



litesong,
Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research wrote:
Recent warming of the Greenland Sea Deep Water is about ten times higher than warming rates estimated for the global ocean. Scientists analyzed temperature data from 1950 to 2010 in the abyssal Greenland Sea, which is an ocean area located just to the south of the Arctic Ocean.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm


[quote]Nature. 2003 Jan 16;421(6920):252-6.
Discovery of abundant hydrothermal venting on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge in the Arctic Ocean.
and
Abstract
Submarine hydrothermal venting along mid-ocean ridges is an important contributor to ridge thermal structure, and the global distribution of such vents has implications for heat and mass fluxes from the Earth's crust and mantle

http://https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12529639

Why is it you do not think that climate change can be a compound problem ? If you studied more about ice ages then you would understand that they are primarily a northern hemisphere event. When the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms.

[quote]Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen wrote:

The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


Looks like you're turning into another litebeer, quoting random numbers as data like it was your duty.


The Parrot Killer
16-02-2018 20:58
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
Wake and ITN,
The 2 of you make a nice couple. litesong doesn't like me either.

Got a good one for the 2 of you. Do you know that Native American women are the only demographic in which nothing is known ? If a Native American woman disappears or is missing, it won't be known. Just watched Wind River. It's based on a true story about what some Native American woman have to suffer because they're not Native American men.
As far as climate change goes, I know what I want to see pursued and am working towards that. As far as you 2 go, all you have are words that have no meaning. a double fallacy inversion ? Maybe.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/
Edited on 16-02-2018 20:59
16-02-2018 21:03
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Wake and ITN,
The 2 of you make a nice couple. litesong doesn't like me either.

Got a good one for the 2 of you. Do you know that Native American women are the only demographic in which nothing is known ? If a Native American woman disappears or is missing, it won't be known. Just watched Wind River. It's based on a true story about what some Native American woman have to suffer because they're not Native American men.
As far as climate change goes, I know what I want to see pursued and am working towards that. As far as you 2 go, all you have are words that have no meaning. a double fallacy inversion ? Maybe.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/


James - don't tell me that. Indian women were thought of as nothing more than property by most tribes. Selling them or giving them away as gifts to befriend other tribes was normal and commonplace.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The Emissivity of the Earth:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
You can never know the emissivity?2021-09-2017 03:38
The Emissivity Question5522-06-2017 23:01
Emissivity of the ocean3829-05-2017 17:34
If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.6010-03-2016 17:28
▲ 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 © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact