Remember me
▼ Content

Hurricane mechanism



Page 2 of 2<12
10-09-2019 15:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:The ice has melted over the 12,000 years since the last ice age.

The ice mass has accumulated over both the Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctica over the last century at least. Over the last seventy years at least the rate of accumulation (building on top) has been at a rate of multiple meters per year.

tmiddles wrote: Melting now could be in part or in whole a continuation of that melting.

Sure, and the net ice mass accumulation is just a continuation of many decades of accumulation that has parts of Greenland buried under kilometers of ice.

tmiddles wrote: If there is an additional reason for the ice to melt we'd need to consider that.

There has only ever been one reason for any ice to melt anywhere and that is to increase its temperature to the proper melting temperature (for the given pressure).

... so yes, if physics has changed and now there is an additional reason for ice to melt then we absolutely need to study it.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-09-2019 13:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If there is an additional reason for the ice to melt we'd need to consider that.

There has only ever been one reason for any ice to melt anywhere and that is to increase its temperature
What I meant was is there are multiple factors in determining that temperature they all need to be considered.

If the Earth has been warming overall for 12,000 years then the question "is it warming", really should be "is there extra warming".
11-09-2019 18:10
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If there is an additional reason for the ice to melt we'd need to consider that.

There has only ever been one reason for any ice to melt anywhere and that is to increase its temperature
What I meant was is there are multiple factors in determining that temperature they all need to be considered.

If the Earth has been warming overall for 12,000 years then the question "is it warming", really should be "is there extra warming".


The IPCC doesn't acknowledge there is any natural warming, it would complicate the sales, of an already slow moving product. Not a lot of people are taking the 'warming, at an alarming rate...' verse too seriously, are there would fewer, if they admit that some of that warming, is natural. They would also need to show how much is natural, and how much is man-made. 1 C increase per 100 years, doesn't split too well.

We don't really know the full extent of the ice age, when the warming started, or when it'll peak. There really is no 'normal' temperature, it's always been a little different every day. Average temperature means very little, to many local variants. Like normal winter days in Florida, are often warmer than some place far north in the summer. There many places, that get similar summer temperatures during the summer, yet when winter comes, Florida night time lows, are still higher than many of those same places, day time high. A yearly average, just smooths over a lot of local variations. The global average doesn't accurately represent the entire planet, since vast areas aren't measured the same as others. The more populated areas provide more readings, and bias the results.

All we really know, is that there was a long cold spell, over a portion of the planet, which eventually passed, and we warmed up. We don't know how long we've been warming, or even how much we could expect to warm up, how long until we hit the peak, or if we already did. That's all been guessing, and agreeing, but still there is nothing more to it, just guessing. It's guessing, that man-made CO2 has anything to do with it. And even then, it's a very tiny number, compared to what happens naturally. For all the CO2 claimed to be manufactured by man combined with all the natural sources, the rate should be consistently higher, every year, everywhere. With all the fancy math, that just hasn't happened, just on the computer models, which are always wrong. Takes time to tune a model, impossible, with nothing to compare the results with. The best you get out of a tuned computer model, is that it's less wrong than before.
11-09-2019 19:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If there is an additional reason for the ice to melt we'd need to consider that.

There has only ever been one reason for any ice to melt anywhere and that is to increase its temperature
What I meant was is there are multiple factors in determining that temperature they all need to be considered.

Oooooh...the Magick 'complex factors' argument. You can't name these factors, can you?
tmiddles wrote:
If the Earth has been warming overall for 12,000 years then the question "is it warming", really should be "is there extra warming".

Why is 12,000 years ago and now significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? Who was measuring the temperature of the Earth 12,000 years ago? Who is measuring the temperature of the Earth now?

Hint: no one


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 14:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:
For all the CO2 claimed to be manufactured by man combined with all the natural sources, the rate should be consistently higher, every year, everywhere.

I don't see how you assume so when the fluctuations in temperature prior to CO2 spiking were a zig zag.

Also do you think we should be trying to figure this out at all? Or should research be stopped?

Into the Night wrote:
Who is measuring the temperature of the Earth now?
Hint: no one

The never-ending chant of nothing can be known.
Even Dr. Pat knows there was an ice age. There are a lot of reliable indicators like tree lines (how far north and how high in altitude trees grew). But if you don't believe in any useful results from research do you?
12-09-2019 17:34
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
For all the CO2 claimed to be manufactured by man combined with all the natural sources, the rate should be consistently higher, every year, everywhere.

I don't see how you assume so when the fluctuations in temperature prior to CO2 spiking were a zig zag.

Also do you think we should be trying to figure this out at all? Or should research be stopped?

Into the Night wrote:
Who is measuring the temperature of the Earth now?
Hint: no one

The never-ending chant of nothing can be known.
Even Dr. Pat knows there was an ice age. There are a lot of reliable indicators like tree lines (how far north and how high in altitude trees grew). But if you don't believe in any useful results from research do you?


There isn't enough there to call it a crisis, and cause a panic, a rush to fix anything, which wouldn't make any difference. There isn't even enough there after many decades, to justify continued federal funding of those research projects. Those interested, should be able to secure private funding, if the project has sufficient merit and interest. Doubt it would, it's the political appeal, that keeps the funding flowing in. Then again, I believe about 90% of the federal grant money should end, across the board. A very high number of those grants would never produce anything of use or value, on a national level. The federal government seldom cares about progress or results. Private funding expects to see something from their investment, are aren't going to be so generous, or frivolous.

The 'indicators', like tree lines, can only give a rough estimate, could be off by thousands of years. They can't tell us if the entire continent was covered in ice, or if that it was smaller areas, that shifted over time. Each of those 'indicators' are also dependent on other factors. I takes a long time for a forest to get established and expand. It's not just the temperature that limits growth. Young trees, are also good food. Out of the thousands of seeds a tree might drop each year, only a few survive to maturity, to drop more seeds. A harsh winter storm every year, only a week or two, is enough to kill off a lot of young plants and trees. Hardly an ice age, but enough cold to restrict expansion of a forest. Nobody was there to observe how the ice age progressed, or how the recover went either. We have consensus and faith, but that doesn't make it fact, or allow us to see the distant past.
12-09-2019 19:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
For all the CO2 claimed to be manufactured by man combined with all the natural sources, the rate should be consistently higher, every year, everywhere.

I don't see how you assume so when the fluctuations in temperature prior to CO2 spiking were a zig zag.

Also do you think we should be trying to figure this out at all? Or should research be stopped?

Into the Night wrote:
Who is measuring the temperature of the Earth now?
Hint: no one

The never-ending chant of nothing can be known.
Even Dr. Pat knows there was an ice age.

No, he doesn't.
tmiddles wrote:
There are a lot of reliable indicators like tree lines (how far north and how high in altitude trees grew).
No such data, and trees do not indicate temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
But if you don't believe in any useful results from research do you?

When properly done, yes.

For example, when you mix glycerine and nitric acid, the temperature rises. That can be measured by a thermometer.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 01:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
For example, when you mix glycerine and nitric acid, the temperature rises. That can be measured by a thermometer.


But human skin temperature can't?
13-09-2019 03:10
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Here we go again...

https://www.wftv.com/weather/eye-on-the-tropics/potential-tropical-cyclone-9-puts-nw-bahamas-under-ts-warning-florida-in-path/985497854

At this point, it's no where near a named storm, just a maybe, at best. Just thought Id throw this one up, so anyone interest in the forecast process in action. I don't personally think it'll develop much, stretching a little to give it a name. Hope Trump holds off for a while, before issuing tropical storm warnings for Alabama this time...
13-09-2019 05:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Here we go again...

https://www.wftv.com/weather/eye-on-the-tropics/potential-tropical-cyclone-9-puts-nw-bahamas-under-ts-warning-florida-in-path/985497854

At this point, it's no where near a named storm, just a maybe, at best. Just thought Id throw this one up, so anyone interest in the forecast process in action. I don't personally think it'll develop much, stretching a little to give it a name. Hope Trump holds off for a while, before issuing tropical storm warnings for Alabama this time...

Unless of course it actually heads for Alabama!



The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 17:58
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
https://www.wftv.com/weather/eye-on-the-tropics/tropical-storm-watches-issued-for-volusia-brevard-counties-as-system-tracks-toward-florida/985886820

Latest update, still not half way to earning a name, but tropical storm watch/warnings issued for the east coast of Florida. Still has to pass over Bahamas, which should weaken/slow it some. Think the hurricane modeling is a little premature at this time. They are telling us to expect heavy rain, strong winds. Probably not much inland, though it does spoil my house paint plans some. Got rained out past two days, actually just a light sprinkle, little heavier in the afternoon. Light sprinkle around here, could also get heavy quick, but doesn't always happen everywhere. If the clouds are there...

I'm not sure about the actual classification today, they glossed over that pretty quick, and went to the models, and the watch/warnings for the weekend. It still has a ways to go, and needs to pick up a lot of speed yet. Really don't expect much more than a thunderstorm, but the hype is in full swing. In the past, these storms that form so close to land, never develop much, seldom get to named status. Dorian was a hurricane, before it got over the Bahamas. Think this one is still considered a tropical disturbance, and should pass the Bahamas overnight. Dorian did pick up considerably after the Bahamas. This storm hasn't gotten organized, yet. Less likely to get organized after crossing land. Think this is going to be pretty good example of computer models, and hype/panic generation by the media.
13-09-2019 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.wftv.com/weather/eye-on-the-tropics/tropical-storm-watches-issued-for-volusia-brevard-counties-as-system-tracks-toward-florida/985886820

Latest update, still not half way to earning a name, but tropical storm watch/warnings issued for the east coast of Florida. Still has to pass over Bahamas, which should weaken/slow it some. Think the hurricane modeling is a little premature at this time. They are telling us to expect heavy rain, strong winds. Probably not much inland, though it does spoil my house paint plans some. Got rained out past two days, actually just a light sprinkle, little heavier in the afternoon. Light sprinkle around here, could also get heavy quick, but doesn't always happen everywhere. If the clouds are there...

I'm not sure about the actual classification today, they glossed over that pretty quick, and went to the models, and the watch/warnings for the weekend. It still has a ways to go, and needs to pick up a lot of speed yet. Really don't expect much more than a thunderstorm, but the hype is in full swing. In the past, these storms that form so close to land, never develop much, seldom get to named status. Dorian was a hurricane, before it got over the Bahamas. Think this one is still considered a tropical disturbance, and should pass the Bahamas overnight. Dorian did pick up considerably after the Bahamas. This storm hasn't gotten organized, yet. Less likely to get organized after crossing land. Think this is going to be pretty good example of computer models, and hype/panic generation by the media.

What? Again?



The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 22:17
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Yeah, hurricane season get's more hype than global warming, and no denying the phantoms are real, but we have to wait a few days to see if they turn into demons. It still has a lot of growing to do, to earn a name, but they seem confident enough to already refer to it as Humberto.
14-09-2019 02:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, hurricane season get's more hype than global warming, and no denying the phantoms are real, but we have to wait a few days to see if they turn into demons. It still has a lot of growing to do, to earn a name, but they seem confident enough to already refer to it as Humberto.


Well, it's earned the name. Maybe it's following a Cuban refugee named Humberto across the ocean.



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-09-2019 02:21
14-09-2019 19:08
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
https://www.wftv.com/weather/tropical-storm-humberto-is-expected-to-track-east-of-florida/986235548

Unusually brief update this morning, all the Florida watches/warnings have been lifted. Seems likely for the storm to head north, maybe not mess around the Bahamas much either. It's basically stalled, like Dorian, still depends on the winds that push/pull the storms, guess that's why they aren't guessing this time. Little chance of it doing much, except heading to open sea. Pretty significant on how they read the storm, though. Wasn't even a sub-tropical storm, until the hurricane hunter aircraft flew through it. This confirms my thoughts, that recent storms aren't actually any stronger than in the past, just a different method of measuring them has been adopted as the primary. They've had hurricane hunters for years, but the were supplemental measurements. It would be support for stronger, more frequent storms, even though the storms haven't actually change, just the method of measurement.

It is kind of strange, they just sort of suddenly lost interest in this storm. If it stay over water, missing the Bahamas, it'll pick up speed, with just the upper atmospheric conditions to limit it. Could get strong, quick like Dorian, being stalled, still means the track is unknown. There is still some potential for disaster, though unlikely for Florida, some folks up north might want to know what's coming.

I still think it's going to fizzle out, don't expect a hurricane from this one.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Hurricane mechanism:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hurricane Dorian, sign of Global Warming?4709-09-2019 19:15
The mechanism of the vertical circulation of the waters of the oceans301-05-2019 20:48
Climate Change Was The Engine That Powered Hurricane Maria's Devastating Rains019-04-2019 15:38
Hurricane Michael Is Officially More Powerful than Hurricane Katrina3115-10-2018 22:49
Hurricane Florence is a Once IN A Lifetime storm3618-09-2018 19:45
Articles
Al Gore: Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming
▲ 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