Has global warming actually been caused by droughts?
| Has global warming actually been caused by droughts?24-02-2019 23:09 | |
Spongy Iris ★★★★☆(1643) |
The consensus theory is basically that more clouds have caused global warming. Where I live I can say this is true in the winter. In the winter the heat from the sun is mild. Days are short and night is long. If there's no clouds, it cools off by a lot at night time, and warms up only a little in the day. If it's cloudy it cools off quite a lot less at night, but also warms up a bit less in the day. (Wind can also change the dynamic but I will leave that out of the equation until later.) It sure doesn't feel true that more clouds warm it up in the summer. The heat from the sun is intense. Days are longer and night is shorter. If there are clouds, it blocks the heat, and cools it off. If there are no clouds it gets a lot hotter. This dynamic is very obvious if you drive from foggy San Francisco to scorching Sacramento in the summer. So it seems increased clouds would moderate temperatures, making them warmer in cold climates, and colder in hot climates. More people live in hot climates than cold climates. So increased clouds doesn't seem to be the reason for global warming. Nature has reported an increase of droughts over many land areas since 1950. If a change in wind patterns could remove cloud cover in sensitive ocean areas and coastal cities, causing more heat to hit the lands and seas, this is what I think has caused global warming. |
| 24-02-2019 23:51 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote: Consensus is not used in science. The effect of clouds on temperature is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Spongy Iris wrote: Is it because of the cloud, or because the air conditions for the narrow temperature swing is conducive to the presence of the cloud? Spongy Iris wrote: Wind doesn't change a thing. Spongy Iris wrote: They don't. They can form in the heat of the summer, though, if moisture is available. Spongy Iris wrote: You are creating a causation where none is necessary. Days that are cool or nights that are warm can often be the conditions to FORM clouds, not the other way around. Spongy Iris wrote: Nope. All you are seeing is different air masses, not clouds per se. Spongy Iris wrote:While is seems so, it can easily be just the reverse. The moderate temperatures allow clouds to hang around or form. Spongy Iris wrote: Most people live in temperate climates, usually somewhere near a jet stream (on the warm side of it). A lot of fresh water comes from the presence of the jet stream. Spongy Iris wrote:Local weather is not global weather. Define 'global warming'. From when to when? Why are those times significant? Why are any other times not significant? Spongy Iris wrote: No one is measuring the number or intensity of droughts around the world. A 'drought' itself is a subjective term. Just what IS a drought? Spongy Iris wrote: Define 'global warming'. Oceans still evaporate water into the air. Storms systems move that moist air inland. Clouds are liquid water suspended in the air. They can form over the ocean (where temperatures don't change much), or over land (where they do). It sounds like you live in California, probably near San Francisco. Don't ignore the effects of that vast ocean off to the west of you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 25-02-2019 02:21 | |
| Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643) |
Into the Night wrote:Spongy Iris wrote: You're frequently making the point that moderate temperatures cause clouds, and clouds don't cause moderate temperatures. The oceans seem to create the most clouds. Temperatures at sea do not vary as much as temperatures on land. Seems more important it is the water evaporating off the ocean that creates the clouds as the water vapor rises. I have no idea why you would say wind doesn't change a thing. Wind moves the clouds and air masses. Wind is what people use to make weather forecasts. The weather moves with most force from west to east. From San Francisco to Sacramento, in the summer time, the clouds can't last as they move from west to east, onto the hot land, from wet sea . But in the winter time the clouds can last. Plus there's also a lesser effect of clouds and air blowing from the east too. Here is a link to one of many charts showing the average surface temperatures of earth have been generally rising from the years 1880 to 2010. It doesn't appear to be exactly random. http://kabbalahsecrets.com/?tag=temperature Since it appears not entirely random, this post attempts to figure out what is the cause of the change. If something as major as the world's temperature is changing in a broadly observed pattern over a long period, would you not agree that this change is significant? And what do you think, if anything, is the cause or causes of the change? |
| 25-02-2019 05:13 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
Along the west coast, you have three mountain ranges. Clouds are heavy, and need to rise, to get past the mountains, so they tend to condense into rain, even snow. The western side of the mountains get more rain than the eastern. Water needs a certain amount of heat to evaporate, and to rise as clouds, so it would be a cooling effect on the surface. Clouds, thankfully, block solar heat. I live in Florida, and can tell you there is a very noticeable change in temperature. I think CO2 global warming is fantasy. Think the numbers are exaggerated, and the few degrees warming is natural and normal. We just had an Ice Age not too many thousands of years ago... Since there is still quite a bit of ice left to melt (ice core samples prove it), glaciers, polar ice sheets, we haven't finished recovering from the big freeze. It's a non-issue, being used for political and financial gain. |
| 25-02-2019 07:33 | |
| Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643) |
HarveyH55 wrote: Just east of the Sierra Nevada mountain range is the Great Basin desert. It's a beautiful place. Ya without clouds in Florida you'd be scorched. The idea that clouds cause global warming must sound the most ridiculous to people living in the tropics. I have only visited Florida in the summer. It rained briefly pretty much every day. I think it's drier there in winter season than summer season, correct? A major climate change event in the tropics happened in 2005 when the USA Caribbean lost half of its coral reefs in 1 year due to a massive bleaching event. I'm assuming that this devastating coral bleaching event was a result of more UV radiation hitting the corals. I wouldn't say such an event was exactly a non-issue. Such an event must have lead to a major depopulation of aquatic life in the ocean. |
| 25-02-2019 08:16 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:Into the Night wrote:Spongy Iris wrote: No, I am saying that we don't know which is which. There really is no way to measure the effect of a cloud on temperatures, because we don't know if the temperatures are causing the cloud to last longer or the cloud is causing the temperatures to be different. Spongy Iris wrote:Correct. That's where most water vapor comes from. Spongy Iris wrote: This is because of the specific heat index of water. It takes a LOT more energy to heat water by one degree than dry air or dry land. Liquid water is like an thermal energy ballast. Yes, clouds are also liquid water. This may be a mechanism that narrows a temperature swing. The question is, is it strong enough to override the temperature of air masses significantly? We just don't know. Spongy Iris wrote: Water vapor also comes from the land, but not as much. Spongy Iris wrote: Because in and of itself, it just moves stuff around. It doesn't by itself add or subtract temperatures. Spongy Iris wrote:Like I said. Spongy Iris wrote:No. It is only part of the picture. What people use to make weather forecasts is essentially like watching approaching waves to the shoreline and predicting how high they will be. We use observers on the ground, satellites images, and any other information we can get to find a 'wave' and how fast it's moving. Then it's just predicting from experience where it will go and when and how strong it will be when it gets there. Forecasts are pretty accurate up to 48 hours out. Beyond that, things get vague because the 'wave' is not fully formed yet. Spongy Iris wrote: Only in this area. In other areas of the world, weather moves primarily from east to west. Look up Hadley Cells to get an idea of where jet streams form and the direction they move in. In our area (and most of the United States), weather is affected by the northern temperate jet stream, which moves west to east, dragging weather along with it. Seattle is closer to this stream than you are, so we usually get more rain. Spongy Iris wrote: The clouds may not be there, but the water vapor still is. If the air cools enough, clouds will form. Spongy Iris wrote:Because temperatures are cooler. The air can hold less water vapor at cooler temperatures. Spongy Iris wrote: This wind, which you call the Santa Ana winds (we call them the Chinook Winds here, they are called the Kona Winds in Hawaii) are the reverse of the normal flow. During the summer months, a high pressure area tends to settle over Utah, while lower pressure areas are along the coast. The result is the Santa Ana winds. Because they come from desert land, they can be dry and hot. Bad wind for wildfires. Even worse, the Sierra Nevada range causes this wind to rise (cooling Reno somewhat) and fall on the lee side (your side), compressing the air and heating it. Mountain wave compression can raise temperatures a good 30 deg F on the lee side. Spongy Iris wrote: Random numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Spongy Iris wrote: You pose an interesting question. What IS a random number? Something that 'looks' random? What does that look like? A single die may roll a six ten times in a row before rolling some other number. Is the die a random number? This is a question that unfortunately cannot be answered in the Real Math Domain. Random numbers come from another Math Domain, called the Discrete Math Domain. That Domain is the world of the computer, and indeed every other machine (including us). The Domains differ by a very slight change in the founding axioms. There are three kinds of random numbers: randR, randN, and randU. A randR number is like dice. These numbers have no memory. They can repeat many times or may not occur at all for awhile. A randN number is like cards. These numbers have a memory. Once a card is drawn, it cannot be drawn again until some reset event takes place (a shuffle). A randU number is the 'predictable' random number. It is a number that is created out of someone's head for some specific purpose. It doesn't matter if the computer assists this through some algorithm some programmer dreamed up. A randU number is the inevitable result of crappy random number generators in computers that don't use a source of entropy. The global temperature charts are randU numbers. They are designed to look like they aren't random, but they are. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We simply don't have anywhere near enough instrumentation for it. This is a math problem, related to statistical mathematics, which uses random numbers. In it's simplest form, a randU looks like the statement: <insert large number here> scientists agree on global warming. The large number inserted is a randU. Using one as data is a fallacy known as an argument from randU fallacy. In any statistical summary, raw data is selected to produce the summary. This data MUST be selected by randN. That means if a point is selected at all, it MUST be selected once, and only once. It cannot be selected 0.8 times, or twice, or 2.3 times. ONCE. This means the data may not be 'corrected'. Raw data MUST be used. Furthermore, the raw data MUST be available. Now the real kicker. As part of any statistical summary, you must calculate another number called the margin of error. This number does not come from the data, but from the possible range of data. In terms of temperature, it comes from the observed gradient of temperature difference per mile. Gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile are not uncommon. Using our present available thermometers, if they were uniformly space (they're not!), you will get one thermometer for an area the size of Virginia. Needless to say, with the observable gradients, all we can really say is that we are guessing. We don't have the instrumentation to measure the temperature of the Earth. What instrumentation we do have is grouped in cities and along roads (they must be serviced). Elsewhere is completely unknown. We literally cannot calculate the temperature of the Earth with any better certainty than guessing. But wait, some will say (including Wake), satellites can give us this information! No, they can't. Satellites are not in contact with the atmosphere and so cannot measure the temperature. They can only measure light. To get an idea of temperature, one must know the albedo of Earth. This is an unknown value. It is a measured value. The way you measure it is to first know precisely the temperature of the body you are calculating for, and comparing that against an ideal black body (a theoretically perfect absorbing body). It'a chicken and egg problem. Spongy Iris wrote:They are random, of type randU. These charts are created out of thick air and computer models and other algorithms. They are literally designed to not look random, and are created for a specific purpose (to indicate 'global warming'). Spongy Iris wrote: We don't know if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. Spongy Iris wrote: There are couple of reasons 'climate change' and 'global warming' are undefined. 1) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. 2) There is no start and end point of the 'change'. With these unspecified, 'change' itself is meaningless. So is 'warming'. 3) Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. The 'long time' is unspecified. Climate itself is a nonquantifiable subjective word. It describes a predominant weather in an area. The vagueness attached to this term renders it useless in science. 4) There is no such thing as a global weather, therefore there is no such thing as a global 'climate'. Many a believer of the Church of Global Warming has attempted to define these terms, but all they can do is define them in terms of themselves; in other words a circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. No one has yet successfully defined either phrase. Science has no theories about things that are not quantifiable. They can't be tested. To be falsifiable, a theory must be testable by a specific test that produces a specific result. No theory at all (scientific or nonscientific) is possible based on a meaningless buzzword. Such an argument is a void argument fallacy. The theory fails the internal consistency check. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 25-02-2019 08:26 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Spongy Iris wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: That it is. I love the Great Basin area. Spongy Iris wrote:Not likely. Florida is surrounded by the sea. The sea will tend to limit temperature swing due to the specific heat index of liquid water. Spongy Iris wrote: Heh. You might be right. Spongy Iris wrote: Coral bleaching does not cause weather changes. The bleaching may happen to water temperature changes, however. In the 2005 bleaching, it was caused by a temporary shift in the position of the Gulf Stream and fertilizer runoff from nearby Florida. That coral reef has fully recovered now (it usually only takes a year or two). Spongy Iris wrote: UV light does not penetrate seawater. Spongy Iris wrote: Certainly not to the corals! Spongy Iris wrote: Nah. It's literally a drop in the proverbial bucket. The ocean is a very LARGE bucket. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate Has global warming actually been caused by droughts?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| How covid 19 vaccine caused Jamie Foxx to become blind and paralyzed | 2 | 08-06-2023 03:23 |
| Confirmed: Global floods, droughts worsening with warming | 99 | 23-03-2023 01:50 |
| Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases | 226 | 05-10-2022 06:53 |
| Droughts Continue in the West | 36 | 01-06-2021 19:33 |
| Is warming caused by increased spectrum usage. | 18 | 29-04-2021 16:14 |