|
Post by Toreador on Jan 18, 2023 13:32:01 GMT
Since you say Sandy has it wrong, perhaps you'd like to deal with my earlier question: Overnight it was -6C here. At the moment its bright sunshine but -4C. A 2 degree drop but the frost and ice still very visible. Question: How does a 1 degree fall manage to thaw the polar icecaps? But it hasn't thawed the polar ice caps. Contrary to many predictions. What interests me is the prediction that the melting of the ice caps will lead to huge rises in sea levels. The thing is that about 30% of the ice caps (the outer caps) are floating. The rest of the ice caps are based on land. The bits of the ice caps that have been prone to melting so far are the bits that are floating and, as any schoolboy knows, when floating ice melts it doesn't cause a rise in the level of liquid water (Archimedes principle). Perhaps I should have said Arctic and Antarctic ice rather than polar. However, the question remains how a drop of 1deg.C will cause ice to melt when the resultant temperature is still below freezing point.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 18, 2023 15:42:48 GMT
It rather looks as if you either don't know or you don't want to look silly. Nope. Its just really basic stuff and I can't be bothered explaining it to you because you are not really interested, but just want to sneer. People in glasshouses shouldn't etc. It matters little it seems how many alternatives we list or other scientists we quote or contradictory peer reviewed evidence is presented we still hear the same old story, 'the science is settled', 99% of climate scientists agree', 'man is causing warming', 'we are all going to die shortly', we must do something', 'denialists are a danger to us all' etc.etc. It is rather scary stuff as it smacks of cultism and there is no reasoning with cultists as we observe here on this very forum.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 18, 2023 15:45:24 GMT
Nope. Its just really basic stuff and I can't be bothered explaining it to you because you are not really interested, but just want to sneer. People in glasshouses shouldn't etc. It matters little it seems how many alternatives we list or other scientists we quote or contradictory peer reviewed evidence is presented we still hear the same old story, 'the science is settled', 99% of climate scientists agree', 'man is causing warming', 'we are all going to die shortly', we must do something', 'denialists are a danger to us all' etc.etc. It is rather scary stuff as it smacks of cultism and there is no reasoning with cultists as we observe here on this very forum. The fact that the face of Eco worriers is a teenage, ‘ vulnerable’ girl says just about everything about the mindset of the Eco worriers.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 18, 2023 16:58:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 18, 2023 20:11:28 GMT
You're just repeating yourself against the facts. I've already told you that isn't how it works. I went to the trouble of giving you actual figures, I wish I hadn't bothered. You give me tarmac roads in the tiny overpopulated UK. Well consider this; How many tarmac roads are there in Africa? And does Africa have the same amount of atmosphere and the UK? Zanygame, I was simply pointing out that your figures of 0.003% of land being urbanised are wrong - massively wrong. But it's not relevant to my rough "sanity check" of the data. Basically all I'm doing is comparing the temperatures of areas that have no "greenery" with equivalent areas that DO have greenery. Since they have the same concentrations of CO2 the difference in temperatures (according to the theories that you subscribe to) can only be due to the energy that photosynthesis captures. And that difference in temperature is MUCH higher than the agreed figure for CO2 warming of 1.1C. (in fact it's much less than 1.1C because even the IPCC don't claim that all that temperature rise is caused by greenhouse gases). So if they are massively wrong, then what are they. Stop just saying the words, back them up. Until then I'm going to ignore you. Its annoying to have to go to the trouble of looking up figures, doing the calculations, explaining the reasoning. And you just say, they're wrong. I've been patient, tried to help, but enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 18, 2023 20:13:56 GMT
But it hasn't thawed the polar ice caps. Contrary to many predictions. What interests me is the prediction that the melting of the ice caps will lead to huge rises in sea levels. The thing is that about 30% of the ice caps (the outer caps) are floating. The rest of the ice caps are based on land. The bits of the ice caps that have been prone to melting so far are the bits that are floating and, as any schoolboy knows, when floating ice melts it doesn't cause a rise in the level of liquid water (Archimedes principle). Perhaps I should have said Arctic and Antarctic ice rather than polar. However, the question remains how a drop of 1deg.C will cause ice to melt when the resultant temperature is still below freezing point. Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you 11 plus boy.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 18, 2023 20:15:18 GMT
But it doesn't hang around in the atmosphere anywhere near as long.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 18, 2023 22:50:45 GMT
Perhaps I should have said Arctic and Antarctic ice rather than polar. However, the question remains how a drop of 1deg.C will cause ice to melt when the resultant temperature is still below freezing point. Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you 11 plus boy. 11-plus boys ask questions, not take every bit of what might be dummy info on board.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 18, 2023 23:20:07 GMT
Do your own homework. I'm not doing it for you 11 plus boy. 11-plus boys ask questions, not take every bit of what might be dummy info on board. Why are you asking me, you think I'm stupid. Your the clever one go find out for yourself. Go and read why the Ice caps are losing mass, why the Northwest passage is now open. Who knows you might even learn something interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 19, 2023 2:05:50 GMT
But it doesn't hang around in the atmosphere anywhere near as long. Why don't you actually watch the videos I link to? It would help with the education on here. Once you have watched it you would understand why what you said is actually part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 19, 2023 6:43:12 GMT
11-plus boys ask questions, not take every bit of what might be dummy info on board. Why are you asking me, you think I'm stupid. Your the clever one go find out for yourself. Go and read why the Ice caps are losing mass, why the Northwest passage is now open. Who knows you might even learn something interesting. Is it OK to check that the master knows what he's talking about? If I read all that, will it tell me such changes have occurred throughout the history of this planet, will it tell me that the Sahara was once a fertile region and that in 15,000 years hence that region will again become fertile, not due to CO2 but due to changes in Earths axis? Will it tell me about deep underwater oceanic currents, again not cause by CO2 but have a profound effect on climate? And how much will your advice tell me that they can't pinpoint ice melt being caused by human activity when much of it is caused by warm water seemingly sinking rather than rising to the surface? So many queestions not being answered because they don't know but don't let that stop some becoming very rich on the back of the bullshine and many becoming poorer..
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 19, 2023 7:42:11 GMT
But it doesn't hang around in the atmosphere anywhere near as long. Why don't you actually watch the videos I link to? It would help with the education on here. Once you have watched it you would understand why what you said is actually part of the problem. Sorry Baron I wasn't saying its not part of the problem. I don't normally watch the proffered You tube videos, partly because my wife is watching tv and partly because so many are junk. Anyway, I have watched your video this morning, its very good, it agrees with me on the shorter life of methane but you on its potency. But your main point of interest (which I now appreciate) is where it came from, one of those unexpected feedback loops that accelerate global warming. Only this one as a result of us cleaning up the atmosphere, seems sometimes we just can't win. The release of methane from permafrost is well documented and one of those tipping points the deniers came are just scaremongering but here it comes. Thanks for this Baron, very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 19, 2023 7:51:17 GMT
Zanygame, I was simply pointing out that your figures of 0.003% of land being urbanised are wrong - massively wrong. But it's not relevant to my rough "sanity check" of the data. Basically all I'm doing is comparing the temperatures of areas that have no "greenery" with equivalent areas that DO have greenery. Since they have the same concentrations of CO2 the difference in temperatures (according to the theories that you subscribe to) can only be due to the energy that photosynthesis captures. And that difference in temperature is MUCH higher than the agreed figure for CO2 warming of 1.1C. (in fact it's much less than 1.1C because even the IPCC don't claim that all that temperature rise is caused by greenhouse gases). So if they are massively wrong, then what are they. Stop just saying the words, back them up. Until then I'm going to ignore you. Its annoying to have to go to the trouble of looking up figures, doing the calculations, explaining the reasoning. And you just say, they're wrong. I've been patient, tried to help, but enough is enough. What you said was: " I'll try one more time to explain this.
In order to calculate the contribution to GLOBAL warming from urban heatsinks you would need to divide the increased temperatures in these areas by the surface area of the planet.
Approx 0.003% of the earths surface is urbanised.
The average difference annually between urban and rural areas is about 6 degrees.
So contribution to increased global temperature from this source is 6 x 0.003 = 0.02 degrees" The problem is that I'm NOT trying to "calculate the contribution to GLOBAL warming from urban heatsinks" And BTW they're not "heatsinks". I'm trying to calculate the the cooling effect of photosynthesis - which is ignored by the IPCC calculations. And to calculate this you do NOT need to know anything about the area of urbanisation - or the size of rural areas. You just need to compare the average temperatures of one urban area and one rural area, no matter what size. But your figure of .003% urbanisation is not one I recognise. From various sources it seems more like 1%. But to do your calculation you need to include more than just "urbanised" areas. As I said 75% of the Earth's land area has been "repurposed" (from the National Geographic) since the baseline of 1850 (when the population of the Earth was about 1 billion). Repurposing involves housing, infrastructure, deforestation, planting monocultures etc etc. So your calculation is pointless - and BTW I think you need to bear in mind that .003% means you have to multiply by .00003 so your calculation should end up at 0.00002 degrees C. Which is so small as to be unmeasurable and would have told you that your data is wrong. However, as SP says you seem to be so brainwashed by the "settled science" that is spoon-fed by most of the media nowadays that you've suspended any critical faculties that you might have - and you don't even bother to read contrary opinions or data. SP has posted some very interesting links that detail arguments by many scientists who have a different view of climate change, and the data to back it up. But I suspect that you haven't even read them.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 19, 2023 7:57:49 GMT
Why are you asking me, you think I'm stupid. Your the clever one go find out for yourself. Go and read why the Ice caps are losing mass, why the Northwest passage is now open. Who knows you might even learn something interesting. Is it OK to check that the master knows what he's talking about? If I read all that, will it tell me such changes have occurred throughout the history of this planet, will it tell me that the Sahara was once a fertile region and that in 15,000 years hence that region will again become fertile, not due to CO2 but due to changes in Earths axis? Will it tell me about deep underwater oceanic currents, again not cause by CO2 but have a profound effect on climate? And how much will your advice tell me that they can't pinpoint ice melt being caused by human activity when much of it is caused by warm water seemingly sinking rather than rising to the surface? So many queestions not being answered because they don't know but don't let that stop some becoming very rich on the back of the bullshine and many becoming poorer.. Watch Barons video. Its really good. This wouldn't be so bad if you didn't boast of your intelligence and acumen. The earths tilt etc (The milankovitch cycles) are well documented and not causing the current warming. But the enormous thing you keep missing is the time scale of the change. Gradual change over 10-15,000 years is manageable, we are looking at change over 100 years. Neither humans nor nature can adapt that fast. The Atlantic escalator is considered one of the things that hid global warming during the nineties (that time when the deniers first appeared saying the scientists had got it wrong) Unfortunately the warmer water it pulled down from the surface all those years ago is now arriving in the arctic circle and accelerating ice melt. Seems the global warming didn't just disappear after all and the conservation of energy laws prevailed over the wishful thinking ones.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 19, 2023 8:01:36 GMT
So if they are massively wrong, then what are they. Stop just saying the words, back them up. Until then I'm going to ignore you. Its annoying to have to go to the trouble of looking up figures, doing the calculations, explaining the reasoning. And you just say, they're wrong. I've been patient, tried to help, but enough is enough. What you said was: " I'll try one more time to explain this.
In order to calculate the contribution to GLOBAL warming from urban heatsinks you would need to divide the increased temperatures in these areas by the surface area of the planet.
Approx 0.003% of the earths surface is urbanised.
The average difference annually between urban and rural areas is about 6 degrees.
So contribution to increased global temperature from this source is 6 x 0.003 = 0.02 degrees" The problem is that I'm NOT trying to "calculate the contribution to GLOBAL warming from urban heatsinks" And BTW they're not "heatsinks". I'm trying to calculate the the cooling effect of photosynthesis - which is ignored by the IPCC calculations. And to calculate this you do NOT need to know anything about the area of urbanisation - or the size of rural areas. You just need to compare the average temperatures of one urban area and one rural area, no matter what size. But your figure of .003% urbanisation is not one I recognise. From various sources it seems more like 1%. But to do your calculation you need to include more than just "urbanised" areas. As I said 75% of the Earth's land area has been "repurposed" (from the National Geographic) since the baseline of 1850 (when the population of the Earth was about 1 billion). Repurposing involves housing, infrastructure, deforestation, planting monocultures etc etc. So your calculation is pointless - and BTW I think you need to bear in mind that .003% means you have to multiply by .00003 so your calculation should end up at 0.00002 degrees C. Which is so small as to be unmeasurable and would have told you that your data is wrong. However, as SP says you seem to be so brainwashed by the "settled science" that is spoon-fed by most of the media nowadays that you've suspended any critical faculties that you might have - and you don't even bother to read contrary opinions or data. SP has posted some very interesting links that detail arguments by many scientists who have a different view of climate change, and the data to back it up. But I suspect that you haven't even read them. The word heatsinks is a perfectly good description. You WERE referring to them as a considered cause of AGW, now you are just lying. I suggested you use the same calculation for forests. Please do. Still no figures to back up your claims, still petty insults instead. Still ignoring you.
|
|