MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Global Warming (Geophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 59, 60, 61  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As you know, since you have been doing it yourself, both sides assume the other is acting in bad faith

Yes you are quite right. Reading back through these posts, it became obvious that my unconscious assumptions were rather misplaced. I noticed very quickly what had triggered my reaction.

It must be the right ball park if everyone is in it but that should not affect ourselves, the ballpark inspectors.

Could not agree more.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Have any of the big predictions, ie the Great Barrier Reef will be dead in 6 months (1971), been true?

Nice one. It goes alongside our "Has any conspiracy theory turned out to be true?" and "When will the thirty years of oil we have left begin?" You forgot to mention that the Domesday Clock has just been moved up a smidgeon. It's been at a minute to midnight since the late fifties but I did not catch how many seconds it was this time.

In theory it's not only one for us but one for us to do from our armchairs since, in theory, both sides ought to have been fact-checking their opponents like mad and all we have to do is cut, paste and compare. But my guess is that for some reason neither side has done this. That reason being, as we AE-ists say, "Cognitive dissonance, projective identification variant."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Friday, one of the most remarkable moments in recent meteorological history opened a window to our future. A strengthening swirl of clouds spinning in the central Atlantic earned the name Tropical Storm Wilfred — exhausting the list of 21 alphabetical names given to Atlantic tropical cyclones by the Miami-based National Hurricane Center on the earliest date in history.

And then Subtropical Storm Alpha was born off the coast of Portugal. At the same time, a “‘”medicane” — a Mediterranean hurricane — was approaching the Greek islands. And then, just a few hours later and 6,000 miles away, Tropical Storm Beta was named in the western Gulf of Mexico, forecasted to bring days of deluge to storm-weary shores. At no point in the 170 years of Atlantic basin weather history have so many strong storms formed so quickly.

Everyone, except climate deniers, are agreed this is because of global warming but opnion is divided as to how the two phenomena are linked. Orthodoxy is adamant they haven't got a clue. Since their model requires water to be evaporated willy-nilly from the world's oceans, they cannot explain why these storms are increasing. "Iss global warmin, innit," is how they put it in academese.

M J Harper and (some) members of his cult do have an explanation. They believe the oceans are in evaporative equilibrium and therefore no forms of precipitation derive from the oceans. Except when locally the equilibrium is upset, notably by increased water temperature. When that happens, hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms are the result. And even resultier when global warming is warming them even more.

Everyone will know we were right when the seas begin to boil and all precipitation is in the form of hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms. But Stockholm will be underwater by then so forget about any Nobel Prizes. Unless they do Nobel Prizes by sub-aqua electronic transfer. Does anyone know?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
M J Harper and (some) members of his cult do have an explanation. They believe the oceans are in evaporative equilibrium and therefore no forms of precipitation derive from the oceans. Except when locally the equilibrium is upset, notably by increased water temperature. When that happens, hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms are the result. And even resultier when global warming is warming them even more.


I will allow no abrogation of the law. AE allows no more than one cause to each effect. As water enters the air in significant supply via plants, that's the only way water enters the air in significant supply.

Therefore; I conclude that hurricanes and Typhoons occur when there are too many plants---and thus too much water in the air. Hurricanes trace a path back to the source of the water that falls from them, where they may even destroy plants through flooding.

That's my pet hypothesis.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Scientists studying our forests are concerned about the impact of drought, not just in California, but also around the world. "Now what we are starting to worry about is whether these droughts are somehow interrelated, and linked at a global scale." There are a lot of forests in the world in trouble, droughts putting pressure on them. "We don't know exactly how much of the global forest cover is at risk, but we're in the process now of finally getting the measurements we need to make those predictions." Techknow, Al-Jazeera.

But will the penny drop? Anyone who thinks getting rid of busted paradigms is harder than saving the planet, should emigrate.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am always on the lookout for 'simpler' (I do not say truer) explanations for global warming. My favourite is always the introduction of jet aircraft and the consequent direct injection of nasties into the atmosphere. But here's a good one

Don't slaughter whales. Each whale sequesters the carbon equivalent that 1500 trees would.

We slaughtered millions of whales then gave up when they gave out. Or, as some say, when we switched from whale-based margarine to plant-based margarine. The timing is not great but do-able.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The AEL is today formally announcing that its target of halving its greenhouse emissions by 2050 is now targeted to be achieved by 2045.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Lightness of water vapor adds heft to global climate models
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-vapor-heft-global-climate.html

New one on me.

Global climate models are the primary tools used to study Earth's climate, predict its future changes and inform climate policymaking.

So kinda important to the future of the human race, right?

However, climate models often differ on the precise degree of future warming, largely due to their representation of clouds.

Maybe so but they haven't even thought about the basic model for a coupla hundred years.

"Climate models are the best tool we have to predict future climate change," said lead author Da Yang, an assistant professor of atmospheric science at UC Davis and faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. "It's important that we actively try to improve them."

I haven't heard much lately but, okay, I'm all ears.

While conventional wisdom has it that hot air rises...

Not conventional wisdom, the laws of physics as they are presently understood.

...the reverse is true in the tropical atmosphere, the study notes. Previous research by Yang and his colleagues proposed that cold air rises in the tropics because humid air is lighter than dry air.

When I pointed out that 'the laws of physics as understood in the laboratory' may not apply in the big world of the earth's atmosphere, I was laughed out of court for not knowing basic physics.

This effect is known as vapor buoyancy, and it regulates the amount of low clouds over the subtropical ocean.

This is what they always do when they discover the laboratory laws of physics are behaving badly in the real world. They come up with an 'effect' that gets them off the hook. But please, chaps, do go on.

"Vapor buoyancy influences the distribution of low clouds—the kind of clouds we have off the California coast, which contribute greatly to the global energy balance," said Yang. "The biggest challenge in accurately predicting future climate change is clouds, so we have to get vapor buoyancy right."

You might get started by not pretending there is anything called 'the subtropical ocean'. Once you introduce such a nebulous concept into your model, you will find 'vapour buoyancy' can be slipped in and out to make the model work. If it's real, it's real and will apply everywhere (unless you can show specifically it doesn't apply locally).

The study reported that six of the 23 widely-used climate models analyzed do not yet include this effect because water vapor is a trace gas, so its buoyancy effect has been considered negligible. But the study shows the vapor buoyancy effect is more significant than previously realized. In climate models without vapor buoyancy, the low cloud cover can be off by about 50% in certain regions.

See what I mean? It's already being applied only in 'certain regions'.

Low clouds are among the most important clouds for climate change and the energy balance of the planet because they reflect so much sunlight. Fewer low clouds can result in more absorbed sunlight and a warmer planet. More low clouds can make for a cooler landscape.

Yadda, yadder, yadder.

"In a warmer climate, the buoyancy effect of water vapor would be increasingly important due to more atmospheric water vapor," Yang said.

Let's yadder some more, like we did last summer.

"It is worth spending more effort to understand how water vapor buoyancy regulates Earth's climate."

It may be worth spending just a tiny bit of effort understanding the basic model. I recommend The Distribution of Deserts by M J Harper https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=5uNQIMcKNTM
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
I will allow no abrogation of the law. AE allows no more than one cause to each effect. As water enters the air in significant supply via plants, that's the only way water enters the air in significant supply.


Err, what happened to water evaporation from the oceans that cover more than half the planet's surface?

On top of that (literally):

New study highlights the impact of two new marine gases on climate models’ accuracy


What have they just found? Ocean life is seeding the clouds above it, and the modellers didn’t know.

The work, published in the journal Science Advances, describes the first measurements of benzene and toluene in polar oceans and indicates that these compounds have a biological origin. Until now, their presence in polar marine air was thought to be a proof of the extent of human pollution from coal and oil combustion or solvent use, among others.


Wossat then?

All those climate models had assumed that all the benzene and toluene found out over the oceans was nasty stuff made by nasty humans. Now it turns out that for millenia it's been produced organically by beeellions and beeellions of teeny-weeny phytoplankton.

The work, published in the journal Science Advances, describes the first measurements of benzene and toluene in polar oceans and indicates that these compounds have a biological origin. Until now, their presence in polar marine air was thought to be a proof of the extent of human pollution from coal and oil combustion or solvent use, among others.


Why does it matter? The climate models have them down as agents of seeding rain clouds.

“If we don’t get the clouds right, we won’t get the climate right,” says Charel Wohl, ICM-CSIC researcher and lead author of the study. “We are just beginning to unveil the multiple ingredients that form cloud seeds,” he adds.

https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/ocean-life-is-seeding-the-clouds-above-it-and-the-modellers-didnt-know/
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Err, what happened to water evaporation from the oceans that cover more than half the planet's surface?

According to us, it doesn't. Sea level is the 'equilibrium' level. This claim is thoroughly mocked by everyone (and his brother).

"It's basic science," they say.
"We are challenging the basic science," we say.
"How can you, it can be demonstrated in the lab," they say.
"But not in the real world at the scale of earth systems," we say.
"Rubbish, they can actually observe and measure it from ships," they say.
"OK, show us the results," we say.
"Nothing," they say.
"Why not give our theory an hour of your time, given that it is the key to saving the planet. It's available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=5uNQIMcKNTM, " we say.
"Piss off, we've got more important things to do," they say.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Good news chaps!

Fascinating evidence has been published that shows the recent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused some cooling over large areas of the planet, and significant and widespread increases in vegetation.

Eh? What? Haven't they been beating us over the head (for decades) with a narrative that CO2 is nasty and bad? And it's a one-way trip to thermageddon?

In a paper published last month, 11 Chinese climate scientists ...

Red alert! Stand by general poo-pooing from the climate consensus gravy train. These Chinese scientists probably work in Wuhan. Anyway...

11 Chinese climate scientists note that the Earth has experienced “widespread vegetation greening” since the 1980s due to CO2 fertilisation effects. Such greening could mitigate global warming “by triggering negative biochemical feedback to the climate system”. The darker green vegetation absorbs more of the sun’s heat, claim the scientists, while processes involving water evaporation or heat convection between the surface and the atmosphere also depress local temperatures.

I'm shocked, shocked, that they can publish stuff like this in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-35799-4

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 419 parts per million and is near an all-time low in the paleo record. In the past, levels have been up to 20 times higher but below about 180 ppm, plant and human life would start to die.

There's something we don't see mentioned very much, the idea that CO2 levels over the last few centuries have been bumping along the bottom of a viable minimum.

It is generally accepted that there has been a recent increase in global vegetation of around 14%. In 2016, a major international scientific study involving 32 scientists noted there had been a “persistent and widespread increase” in growing season greening over 25-50% of the global vegetated area.

Again, not mentioned by Al Beeb and Saint Attenborough. People might get the idea that CO2 is good for us!

Some scientist are relaxed about rising levels of CO2 as a consequence. Dr Roy Spencer, the former senior scientist at NASA, notes that, “though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere”.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/05/scientists-discover-that-higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-are-cooling-many-parts-of-the-planet/#comments
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The darker green vegetation absorbs more of the sun’s heat, claim the scientists

I am more than ordinarily confused. This used to be thought a bad thing i.e. less ice bouncing heat back and so forth. Is there now good and bad albedo? After all the vegetation is not really 'absorbing' the heat, is it? It's got to go somewhere if there's anything to this new theory I've just heard about, the conservation of energy or something.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

More good news chaps!

Ma wee cousin Borry MacBoreades of Glenborrydale sends glad tidings of joy from Scotland.

It's not widely known by the Green population that windmills don't work when there's no wind. But Scottish ingenuity has overcome that trivial problem.

Dozens of giant turbines on Scotland’s windfarms have been powered by diesel generators, the Sunday Mail can reveal. Scottish Power admitted 71 of its windmills were hooked up to the fossil fuel supply after a fault developed on the grid.The firm said it was forced to act in order to keep the turbines warm during very cold weather in December.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dozens-scottish-power-wind-turbines-29135763

Next, the solar panels that generate electricity in the dark.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
Err, what happened to water evaporation from the oceans


It happens naught to any practical effect.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

that cover more than half the planet's surface?


That proves how ineffectual ocean evaporation is.

Acre-for-acre, even taking the conventional view of ocean evaporation as the primary source of virtually all water on the land, it can't compete with the efficiency of transpiration.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 59, 60, 61  Next

Jump to:  
Page 60 of 61

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group