Global Cooling

[unjonharley]

On a larger scale there is a warm spot in the ocean this year.. This makes the weather coming ashore in the west react.. The storms come in much farther south.. Snow in Ca., Az., and Nm.. While the Olimpics are getting little or no snow for the games.. Or. stands at half it's snow fall for this winter.. This makes all the (sayers) run in cycles every few years..

[Token]

DIY ocean heating

by Mark Imisides

That was a perfect example of bad modeling based on poor assumptions.

It is a pleasant exercise in jumping to outrageous conclusions.

The oceans are directly heated by the sun energy they convert to heat. The ocean in turn heats the air above it. Not the other way around as is this jokers premise.

The key is that the closed system is always in equilibrium WRT the net energy in/out. The vast heat capacity of the ocean does influence the sensitivity of the closed system with a relatively constant energy input but it sure as hell does not behave as this guy models it.

BTW, oceans, dirt and air all heat up the same way;

In dirt and oceans, surface layers have variable temperature that tracks the amount of energy absorbed from the sun. At some depth (depending on locale) the temperature reaches some constant value and stays constant until the earths core starts influencing it.

Similar for the air; bottom layers are seasonally variable, but at some altitude (or dm as meteorologists like to use) the air temperature becomes relatively constant (I think -54C degrees) before you break out into space.

Any good model needs to integrate the fact that all this vast mass of water, dirt and air is in energy neutral state, i.e. equilibrium.

What we call climate is just a bit of turbulence in the thermodynamics of the boundary layers between these relatively steady states.

[dr.placebo]

I didn't know ocean water doesn't mix........interesting.

Strictly speaking, it does mix, but rather slowly. You have the normal processes of convection, diffusion, and radiation for heat transfer, but they operate on a vastly longer time scale than the atmosphere. And the ground transfers heat even more slowly. It's the interface layers that dominate when it comes to temperature.

[ygmir]

oh, ok, so, the heat does transfer and move, just slowly........
I feel better about that...........makes more sense.

[can't sit still]

Token, I said that it had interesting numbers. The obvious fact that it left out radiant heating from the sun was a huge omission. His numbers seem to look at conduction only. Any serious reader would see the absence of convection and radiation.

[unjonharley]

DIY ocean heating

by Mark Imisides

That was a perfect example of bad modeling based on poor assumptions.

It is a pleasant exercise in jumping to outrageous conclusions.

The oceans are directly heated by the sun energy they convert to heat. The ocean in turn heats the air above it. Not the other way around as is this jokers premise.

The key is that the closed system is always in equilibrium WRT the net energy in/out. The vast heat capacity of the ocean does influence the sensitivity of the closed system with a relatively constant energy input but it sure as hell does not behave as this guy models it.

BTW, oceans, dirt and air all heat up the same way;

In dirt and oceans, surface layers have variable temperature that tracks the amount of energy absorbed from the sun. At some depth (depending on locale) the temperature reaches some constant value and stays constant until the earths core starts influencing it.

Similar for the air; bottom layers are seasonally variable, but at some altitude (or dm as meteorologists like to use) the air temperature becomes relatively constant (I think -54C degrees) before you break out into space.

Any good model needs to integrate the fact that all this vast mass of water, dirt and air is in energy neutral state, i.e. equilibrium.

What we call climate is just a bit of turbulence in the thermodynamics of the boundary layers between these relatively steady states.

Now we are getting some where.. The "steady states" are the only ones that would show true change.. So where the hell are the people watching this.. My grandmother cellor held a constant temp.. We used the inside trap door to not disturd this temp.. Using the outside door for loading and cleaning would change the climete for awhile.. It would return to normal after being left alone over a short times.. Outside temps in summer were in the 80's 90's.. In the winter as low as -25f

[Isotopia]

i do try to be very cautious about completely disregarding any, especially if they are read by a lot of people. the argument is, after all, the important thing...

LittleFlower, for someone wielding their flaming torch and pitchfork at the alleged insufficiencies and shortcomings of the science, your above statement instantly becomes the most patently, fucking absurd and hypocritical thing said this week.

You're beginning to show your true clown face.

[theCryptofishist]

Token, I said that it had interesting numbers. The obvious fact that it left out radiant heating from the sun was a huge omission. His numbers seem to look at conduction only. Any serious reader would see the absence of convection and radiation.

Then why bring it up? It's just muddying the water to bring in spurious stuff.

[Ugly Dougly]

Looks like we got another El Nino on our hands.
http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/

El Niño strengthened during December 2009, with above-average sea surface temperatures (SST) encompassing the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. Weekly values of the Niño-3.4 index increased slightly with the most recent value reaching +1.8oC. Consistent with this warmth, equatorial upper-ocean heat content anomalies remained positive. Subsurface temperature anomalies exceeded +2oC across much of the equatorial Pacific, with the largest departures seen in the eastern part of the basin at the end of the month. Equatorial low-level westerly and upper-level easterly wind anomalies were also consistent with El Niño, along with a continuation of suppressed convection over Indonesia and enhanced convection over the western and central equatorial Pacific. Collectively, these oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect a strong El Niño.

Stupid climatologists, what do they know?

[ygmir]

yeah, they get paid, and, no one knows if they're even right, or, if it matters that they are........

[littleflower]

i do try to be very cautious about completely disregarding any, especially if they are read by a lot of people. the argument is, after all, the important thing...

LittleFlower, for someone wielding their flaming torch and pitchfork at the alleged insufficiencies and shortcomings of the science, your above statement instantly becomes the most patently, fucking absurd and hypocritical thing said this week.

You're beginning to show your true clown face.

iso ...

i have neither flaming torch nor pitchfork. i have never suggested that i know much of science, either. i wasn't even questioning dr. placebo's conclusions on global warming in that post .... he has made several posts about news sources on other threads as well as this one that i found extremely myopic. it just came out on this thread because this is where he posted those comments about the telegraph.

it's called "thread drift." perhaps you have heard of it?

i follow this thread because i am interested in a number of ideas regarding global warming, but i rarely post much about it because i don't know enough to contribute to the conversation.

politics, however, is a different story.

thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

[can't sit still]

Ms crypto, It's not spurious. It's incomplete.Just like so much other data used in the arguments. The fact that hundreds of cold-climate stations were excised from later results to skew the relationship to the baseline is also an example of incomplete data. I try to consider all the fractions presented.

[Dad]

So staring into space as I do so often, I wonder the point of all of this. Yes, incredibly interesting concepts to look at, but staring at Sirius, I am viewing the past, or so science says. I suppose looking in to earth we are really discussing the past then. What is now and present, and what is past? Perhaps we need to look at the earth from a different perspective to understand it's path. The same one we look at space with. It is all past. What I just wrote is neither here or there but just past thoughts one can look at with the thought of trying to understand what happened. Seems much like climate. Last week my friends son was killed by a falling tree. Past. Seemed a dream as when I found out. Was past history so to speak yet felt like the present. Look back from afar. I mean really afar and wonder what really is happening. Love all your words and input but really wonder if the earth and it's process's have ever been considered in this method.

[Isotopia]

What I just wrote is neither here or there but just past thoughts one can look at with the thought of trying to understand what happened.

As poignant and poetic as that might sound that's not how science works.

Fortunately.

[ygmir]

nice post, Dad.......
and, true sympathy to your friend.

Iso:
Perhaps, though, science, at times, should go "outside", to look back in?

What if, what Dad is saying, is, that, the change we see today, is the result of conditions thousands of years ago.......What if it's just showing results now?
Could there be that much of a delay?
Not saying there is, but, that post made me think (and, that's no easy for me)

[unjonharley]

I'm asking again.. Who is watching the known constants?.. And are they changing?.. Is this making the climette change?

[Ugly Dougly]

Dad, you've become unstuck in time. Go with it until you are ready.

There are so many constants and only so many graduate students available to measure them. How do you measure glacier volume? Tape measure? Who is available to count polar bears?

[bm_cricket]

Dad, you've become unstuck in time. Go with it until you are ready.

There are so many constants and only so many graduate students available to measure them. How do you measure glacier volume? Tape measure? Who is available to count polar bears?

Believe it or not they measure can measure polar bears the same way they measure water use in the central coast of California, via satellite image (In the case of water use it's a calculation, polar bears are a lot easier since all they do is count them with a computer)

And as for glacier volume it's a little more complicated than a tape measure but not much. They know where the underlying rock is (from seismic and simple field work) and the altitude of the surface (to great accuracy using LIDAR) so they do an itty bitty bit of calculus and you have the volume.

The moral of the story is that most of this stuff can be observed from a computer almost anywhere if you have access to the right satellite data.

[unjonharley]

Dad, you've become unstuck in time. Go with it until you are ready.

There are so many constants and only so many graduate students available to measure them. How do you measure glacier volume? Tape measure? Who is available to count polar bears?

Believe it or not they measure can measure polar bears the same way they measure water use in the central coast of California, via satellite image (In the case of water use it's a calculation, polar bears are a lot easier since all they do is count them with a computer)

And as for glacier volume it's a little more complicated than a tape measure but not much. They know where the underlying rock is (from seismic and simple field work) and the altitude of the surface (to great accuracy using LIDAR) so they do an itty bitty bit of calculus and you have the volume.


Yeah, and a few years back there was this hole in the ozone that was melting the ice caps.. This is ozone we are talking about. You can't touch, smell, see or mesure it.. Still there was this hugh hole in nothing.. It all boiled down to 'ME' AND MY AIR CONDITIONER!!!!
The moral of the story is that most of this stuff can be observed from a computer almost anywhere if you have access to the right satellite data.

[bm_cricket]

Yeah, and a few years back there was this hole in the ozone that was melting the ice caps.. This is ozone we are talking about. You can't touch, smell, see or mesure it.. Still there was this hugh hole in nothing.. It all boiled down to 'ME' AND MY AIR CONDITIONER!!!!

..What?

[dr.placebo]

I'm asking again.. Who is watching the known constants?.. And are they changing?.. Is this making the climette change?

If you mean the basic physical constants, like the speed of light or the gravitational constant or Planck constant, just about any small change in almost any of them would be noticed in a hurry. All sorts of delicate instruments (like GPS) would stop working and people would be screaming their heads off.

Much of what we think of as constant, though, slowly changes. The sun's intensity, the orbit of the earth, the tidal force of the moon, all change by small amounts and they do affect the climate. But mostly they do so quite slowly. Also, since about 1957-1958 (the International Geophysical Year), measurements of just about anything that affects the earth's climate have been getting better at a rapid rate.

So yes, the things that we know of that can affect the climate are measured intensively by a lot of people. Most of these are measured in more than one way by more than one group. There could, of course, still be influences that we are not measuring, or not measuring well enough, but I don't think that we are missing anything significant. I also don't think that there is significant fraud in climate measurements.

[can't sit still]

I wouldn't go betting the farm on either Planck's constant OR c.
"If c is not a fixed constant, Planck's "constant" should vary with time, that is inversely proportional to c. (That this is so experimentally is borne out with reasonable statistical confidence levels by data given in the Setterfield and Norman 1987 report and also by Montgomery and Dolphin in their Galilean Electrodynamics paper)."
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html
The jury is still out.

[Token]

Ha ha ha,

Good times!

A bunch of creationist with advanced science degrees trying to fit modern physics into god creating the world 10000 years ago.

Sure, if the speed of light is decaying from some ludicrous high value, the big bang never happened and god opened the heavens not to long ago and created the universe the way it is today.

I love it!

[ygmir]

now......that's enough, you just stop that, stop it right now!!!!



yer makin' Jimmy cry

[epic_elite]

i don't know to much on this topic.

but someone posed a question earlier on the first page.

'who makes money on global warming'

bans on cfc's have been associated with the depletion on the ozone layer, which has been associated with global warming.

i work in a pharmacy for a living.

about 1 year ago, cfc's were banned as a propellent in all nebulizers like those used in common asthma medications. Many of the newer inhalers were already modified to not require pressure to propell the drug into the lungs.

but all albuterol inhalers have been reformulated, and when a drug gets reformulated, the drug company gets thier patent back. albuterol has been in generic form for quite some time prior to the passing of this law, but now with the reformulation, the patent clock is set back to zero.

provetil & proair are exclusive producers of albuterol. there are many other propelled inhalable steroids that are also used for asthma that have also regianed thier patents due to the ban on cfcs as an inhalable steroid propellant and any drug company that holds the patent holds the right to be the sole distributor for that drug.

previosly a number of companies fought over thier spot on the shelf driving prices down to $10

now you gotta buy the reformulated proair for $50, and they have no one to compete with.

you can still buy the albuterol that requires a mechanical nebulizer... essentially a glorified air compressor... but guess how much that costs?

[can't sit still]

It's true, one is automatically on shaky ground by quoting creationists. I had heard that Planck's constant wasn't near as "fixed" as previously thought. A quick search turned up that particular page. I wasn't about to do a thorough search.
The fact Of "c" being fixed is very interesting. Since it's related to time, there is much doubt. What can we say that we absolutely know about time?

At the Oregon Vortex, an Accutron watch loses time. About 2 1/2 minutes a day. Einstein said that time runs slower there. The Accutron is based on the atomic vibration of hydrogen,,, if memory serves me. You're more than welcome to do a thorough search. Here's a page to start;
http://vectorpub.com/V-CHAP1.htm
The Vortex is unusual in that photographs will show anomalies. If time isn't the constant that we believe, that throws many other things into doubt.

[ygmir]

ee:
I posited the idea of "making money" from this.
And, I still think, most of the "hype" (not real science, investigation, etc.) is related to making money.........
I had not even considered what you posted. Very good info. I'd bet, there are a lot of "spin off" profits and leverages, related to some of this issue, and, related legislation.........

but, that's the cynic in me.........

[Dad]

Interesting how this blog moves and I appreciate the knowledge and thoughts being written and provoked. I often wonder about what is considered true science. Take water. The true science says water is 8.34 lbs per gallon. 7.48 gallons per cubic ft.. But this is only true at sea level. When working in water and waste water, many factors must be taken into consideration that change this. Altitude, temperature, and barometric pressure to name a few. So to say that all water is the same is a direct conflict to what we are all taught as an absolute. In energy production, MC2 seems to be the same. Simply we must look at 2 products. 1st is Tesla's Tesla Coil that was stopped by the investor, J.P. Morgan, when there was no way to monitor and meter the free energy produced. The 2nd that comes to mind is Stanley Meyers electrolysis of water to make hydrogen. His patent was taken by the U.S. government under the pretense of national security. Now I just mention these 2 things to make people think whether science is an absolute or just based and described as humans know how and to control an ever growing energy monopoly. It is also taught to us this way and causes many engineers, including my brother to refuse the thought that it is possible to do anything beyond what is taught to them as basic physics in school. I am not in any way disputing the fact of global climate change, but rather, trying to stimulate the thought process outside the box of conventional science teachings.

[unjonharley]

Has'nt this place been warmin up sence the last ice age..

[can't sit still]

Harley, i posted a link to a graph somewhere here. The norm has been ice. The warm interruptions have been relatively brief. We're in the late Holocene and it has gone on for an unusually long time. the ice will return.

Dad, here's a couple of threads about how little we know and how much we discover;
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=11521

This is a thread where we discussed ZPE;
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=11823

On the subject of water, There are MANY new discoveries concerning water. Supposedly, there are about 16 types of water. It seems to depend on the relative ratios of deuterium and tritium.
Then, there is much new science related to the gaseous production of reducing water;
Brown's gas HHO, etc. There are reliable claims that Brown's gas will remove the radiation from radioactive waste. So says the AEC in Canada. You can look at the work of Bob Boyce for some very interesting results. His work is different than Stan Meyer's work.
You can read for years,,, like I did.
Sterling Allen does a good job of presenting new tech;
http://pureenergysystems.com/about/pers ... ingDAllan/

This thread isn't so much drifting as careening.