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, 4 ... 58, 59, 60  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

One would add that the orthodox error re The Hydrological Cycle is probably even more important than the errors re the Glaciation Cycle.


O Master, you keep telling us about your insight into the Hydrological Cycle but I don't understand what you mean. Could you please add another topic so we can all learn?
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

O Master, you keep telling us about your insight into the Hydrological Cycle but I don't understand what you mean. Could you please add another topic so we can all learn?

Seconded.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
The fact that this is naturally an equilibrium position is why AE-ists have to take notice of the Climate Change debate even though we regularly recognise that both sides are gilding various lillies. One would add that the orthodox error re The Hydrological Cycle is probably even more important than the errors re the Glaciation Cycle.


How can you even take the GW hypothesis seriously?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

THE ANTARCTIC IS MELTING... WE'RE DOOMED!

The Antarctic Peninsula - the strip of land that points towards the southern tip of South America - has warmed by about 3C over the last 50 years, the fastest rise seen anywhere in the southern hemisphere, according to the report.


Oh... hang on, maybe not.

But the rest of the continent has remained largely immune from the global trend of rising temperatures.


In fact most of it isn't melting... it's getting even more freezier than wot it woz.

Indeed, the continent's largest portion, East Antarctica, appears to have cooled, bringing a 10% increase in the sea ice extent since 1980.


Why?

This report backs the theory that it has bucked the global trend largely because of ozone depletion - the chemical havoc wrought over 30 years by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other agents in the stratosphere above the polar region.
"We used to have a big blanket of ozone, and when we took it away we saw a cooling," said Professor Turner.
"The Antarctic has been shielded from the impacts of global warming."


BRING BACK CFCs... AND SAVE THE PLANET!
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:

The Antarctic Peninsula - the strip of land that points towards the southern tip of South America - has warmed by about 3C over the last 50 years, the fastest rise seen anywhere in the southern hemisphere, according to the report.


And what, pray tell, underlay the Antarctic Peninsula?

The southern extremity of the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Isn't Mt Erebus an active volcano.

Guess they forgot to put that bit in - didn't fit the overall tone of the article.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Isn't Mt Erebus an active volcano.


Yes, but unfortunately it's on the cold side of the continent... well away from the peninsula that is supposed to be warming up.

And what about the Himalayas? They're making the the same claim about them warming up (and the glaciers melting)... no volcanism there is there?

If climate change is occurring (and nothing we have seen thus far, lies outside the extremes of the normal climatic conditions of recorded history) then I think volcanism is about as likely the cause as.. err... human CO2 production. (And that isn't saying much.)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

O Master, you keep telling us about your insight into the Hydrological Cycle but I don't understand what you mean. Could you please add another topic so we can all learn?

Well, I daresay it will be a case of pearls-before-swine but here goes. M J Harper he say:

1. Present sea level is an evaporation equilibrium point ie there is no water evaporation taking place over the sea (except temporarily and locally where the equilibrium is upset)
2. Therefore there is no maritime input into the hydrological cycle (except as per the brackets above)
3. Therefore all rainfall comes from plants transpiring water vapour (except as per the brackets) which circles the earth in a west-to-east direction as the earth turns east-to-west, dropping as rain when locally prompted
4. Gaia goes to quite a lot of trouble to ensure that this plant-fed hydrological cycle is stable
5. Man comes along and starts cutting down trees (lots of water-vapour expired) for cereals (not so much) in temperate areas.
6. Gaia can cope temperature-wise even though rainfall falls off (and is anyway largely offset by irrigation schemes).
7. Man comes along and starts chopping down the equatorial rain forest
8. Gaia can't cope and rainfall in the tropics and just outside (eg Australia, sub-Saharan Africa etc) starts tailing off
9. Rainfall is a chief ingredient for temperature control in equatorial and sub-equatorial areas
10. In the absence of said rainfall, these areas start to get hotter and gradually so does the rest of the globe.

If this is true it will be a simple matter to cure global warming except for the difficulty of getting the Earth Sciences to agree that their Hydrological Cycle Model is wrong and M J Harper's is right. We will all fry before that happens. Gratuities in the usual place.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

AE says the "science" of aerosol depletion was adopted because everybody knew that it was do-able, whereas the more obvious cause (jet aircraft vapour) wasn't do-able. This is still the position today.

It is interesting that after all this time still no government has actually done anything that affected its citizens' life-styles. But everyone agrees they will do so big time by twenty-...er....in the future.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
1. Present sea level is an evaporation equilibirum point ie there is no water evaporation taking place over the sea (except temporarily and locally where the equilibirum is upset)
2. Therefore there is no maritime input into the hydrological cycle (except as per the brackets above)


How does the vast amount of water that falls as rain, then flows into the sea via rivers get re-cycled... if not by evaporation?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How does the vast amount of water that falls as rain, then flows into the sea via rivers get re-cycled... if not by evaporation?

Let us begin the explanation by defining the problem. Would you care to convert the pejorative-yet-strangely-indeterminate term "vast" into an actual figure? You being a weights-and-measure inspector and all.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:

10. In the absence of said rainfall, these areas start to get hotter and gradually so does the rest of the globe.


Though of course I am a wide-eyed disciple of your genius in this matter, what the relationship may be between water vapor and temperature has yet to be demonstrated.

It should also be noted that, in recent years, there has been considerable reforestation in the tropics, according to my sources. If true, this should produce increases of rainfall in places like Australia.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

what the relationship may be between water vapor and temperature has yet to be demonstrated.

Well, I only came up with the theory last week. It just seemed reasonable to me that, especially in the tropics, rain tends to make things a bit cooler. Isn't this our generalised experience?

It should also be noted that, in recent years, there has been considerable reforestation in the tropics, according to my sources. If true, this should produce increases of rainfall in places like Australia.

Your sources are a little notorious. I always keep my eye on things and always trace back "Lake Eyre disappears!" type stories with mad axemen at work in the Matto Grosso. Certainly my observations are even less scientific than yours but even so I am confident that the net trend for the last (let's say) thirty years has been de- rather than re-forestation. But always remember Gaia has presumably been optimising rain-production for zillions of years so there is no guarantee that an artificial re-afforestation will be be as productive as the original.

If anyone can find figures on total world rainfall, and whether it is falling or rising, I would be most grateful. Even not finding it (presumably because nobody has bothered to compile it) would be useful to know in an AE kind of way.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
How does the vast amount of water that falls as rain, then flows into the sea via rivers get re-cycled... if not by evaporation?

Let us begin the explanation by defining the problem. Would you care to convert the pejorative-yet-strangely-indeterminate term "vast" into an actual figure? You being a weights-and-measure inspector and all.


Approximately 19,000,000,000,000 cubic metres (or 4,180,000,000,000,000 gallons) per annum.

The Nile incidentally, manages to deliver about 50% of its contents into the Med... the other 50% being lost to evaporation on its journey through the desert and swamps of Africa.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Well, I only came up with the theory last week. It just seemed reasonable to me that, especially in the tropics, rain tends to make things a bit cooler. Isn't this our generalised experience?


I think you may be guilty of reversing cause and effect.

Hot air can hold more water vapor than can cold air. When the air gets cold, rain falls as a consequence.

But does perhaps the air get hotter in order to hold more water vapor when more water vapor is available? Now there's a question for Gaia.

If anyone can find figures on total world rainfall, and whether it is falling or rising, I would be most grateful.


Climate science is so corrupted by politics, there is no hope of obtaining accurate data for any of this. I trust you are all following Climategate?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As I said in my last post, 19,000,000,000,000 cubic metres of rain water per annum, flows into the sea. The Amazon alone is responsible for about a fifth of this... and in the rainy season it dumps 26,000,000,000 cubic metres per day into the South Atlantic.

Offshore of the mouth of the Amazon, potable water can be drawn from the ocean while still out of sight of the coastline, and the salinity of the ocean is notably lower 500 kilometres (310 miles) out to sea.


This is a vast amount of water that needs to be returned to the system.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 58, 59, 60  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 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