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 ... 58, 59, 60
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
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 58, 59, 60

Jump to:  
Page 60 of 60

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