What's new

Global Climate Status Report

By the way, the definition of heat capacity given by Silesian is the classical definition. Not the "text book" definition. The modern qm definition is the one with degrees of freedom for translational motion (temp) vs potential energy like the chemical bonds in a molecule, as given by babe. They can both be found in text books.

I think the articles I linked did a good job of say all materials can absorb any radiation. But with some sweet spots where there is a more efficient effect.

kinetic vs potential energy debate here. Do we see movement as something different from electronic change in orbital energy? Can the energy difference between electronic states be converted to movement? What's the difference between a solar cell and a moving copper wire in a magnetic field?

I think qm unifies the whole argument.

Anyway thanks to all here for participating. Challenging my old grey cells. And white cells.
 
Sorry, I haven't read this thread at all. What is there to set the record straight about?

I've been outta school for decades and I'm talking to people who are more current on the terminology, maybe even the concepts, perhaps. Basketball fans here wanna know what we're talking about, from someone qualified to explain.

I don't know if you are a physics professor or a psychology/mass communications/PoliSci professor or what, but I think Log has the same notion somehow that you're teaching physics.

I think even if all we believe we know about carbon dioxide causing climate change is correct..... there may be some things we're not figuring on at work.... like a global thermostat system that cycles us from Ice Age to Interglacial Warm..... or something else in the Universe that can drive our climate......

So here is my discussion of the coming Ice Age.... once we get the oceans evaporating at a rate than can produce enough precipitation in the Hudson Bay zone to last as ice all summer, for a few decades.

I think I'm rusty on the terminology of PChem and physics, and Sil is giving me a schooling.... and Al is being a unifier.....

I think Log and EM just want something they can understand....
 
Last edited:
I don't know if you are a physics professor or a psychology/mass communications/PoliSci professor or what, but I think Log has the same notion somehow that you're teaching physics.

Yes, I'm a physics professor. Certainly not an expert on climate science, though... although I think I understand enough of the science to understand those who are experts. I was at a national physics conference a couple of weeks ago and went to a 30 minute talk that tried to summarize the state of the art in climate models. The guy basically started with the simplest model, then added refinements, describing each new term in the calculations while showing the results getting more and more accurate. I was frankly impressed at how accurate they are getting, although the guy admitted there are still some factors too difficult to take into account. But the models do account for the vast majority of what we see in observations, which is a great indication that people do understand the science pretty well. And there's no doubt about serious human driven climate change.
 
Yes, I'm a physics professor. Certainly not an expert on climate science, though... although I think I understand enough of the science to understand those who are experts. I was at a national physics conference a couple of weeks ago and went to a 30 minute talk that tried to summarize the state of the art in climate models. The guy basically started with the simplest model, then added refinements, describing each new term in the calculations while showing the results getting more and more accurate. I was frankly impressed at how accurate they are getting, although the guy admitted there are still some factors too difficult to take into account. But the models do account for the vast majority of what we see in observations, which is a great indication that people do understand the science pretty well. And there's no doubt about serious human driven climate change.

Thanks. Well said.

Of course after all the best we can do, I'm the contrarian willing to pop up and annoy the authorities.....

remember the song about the impossible dream.
 
Last edited:
So here's where I go to get weather info.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane

This site is now owned by determined AGW folks. Before that, a few years ago, the chief experts running the site were imo objective on the subject. But they sold out. At first the site sorta floundered and sometimes lagged a bit, enough that some of the other site visitors were making comments like.... "If you'd stop pushing the AGW cart, you could keep up with the weather like you used to..."

Note Australia's twin cyclone situation, where in both cases it is stated that ocean temps are about 1 C above normal for this time of year..... and I think that is actual.... and it is huge in hurricane strength.
 
I'm trying to link wu's SST departure map.... a visual look at the world's surface sea temps pointing out warm and cold spots...


https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane

what shows is the current SSTs. To get the anomaly map you need to click on the white map underneath.

I am disappointed that these are not updated frequently enough.... once a year is not my idea of "current".

But note the large warmer area between Hawaii and Mexico, and the areas on either side of Australia.

The blue is colder water..... the site of upwelling deeper water in the Oceans' vertical circulation patterns. The warm is where ocean circulation is drawing from the surface and taking water deeper.... so warmer water at depth too.

I assert that overall, the oceans are now warmer by 1 C than any long-term data could show as "average". This is huge.
 
Last edited:
Oceanic Energy Estimation......

is orders of magnitude more important that Atmospheric Energy Estimates.

It appears to me that today's scientists are working on energy balance models for the Atmosphere..... with inputs from the Sun, from the Earth..... from Man..... and from the Cosmos. And with outputs figured as radiation, like "Black Body Radiation" determined by ambient surface and air temps. All with some kind of estimate of how atmospheric composition affects the net flows. With CO2 being positively a very important factor in moderating those flows, with a net result of keeping our atmosphere warmer, in some kind of linear relation to CO2 content.

It is believed.... accepted.... by the crowd of compliant consensus cronies.... that humans burning astronomical amounts of fossil fuels..... are measurably increasing the atmospheric content of CO2.....hmmmm….. maybe.... but:
 
Nobody is talking about Oceanic CO2 Composition, or the "Outgassing" that occurs as the Oceans get warmer.....

Here is one scientific article, purporting to evaluate the Southern Ocean cycle known as SAM, the Southern Annular Mode..... that reports "anomalous" outgassing and proposes an explanation..... without mentioning any possibility of changing Oceanic Temperatures......

Truly...… Amazing....

Can anyone still wonder why I don't believe our current crop of consensus cronies????
 
Last edited:
So to really get at the issue.....

We need good data on oceanic currents..... flows of water, with measurements of temps and salinity of those flows.

Ice melting around the South Pole is directly connected to the Southern Oceans, but ice melting around the North Pole is not so well connected. We have this 50-mile Bering Strait.... a few channels between Greenland and the North American mainland..... and a relatively small "North Sea" between Norway and Greenland. With many major rivers running north into the Arctic Sea that run high all summer. All that fresh water must lower the salinity of the entire Arctic Ocean, raising the melting temp maybe a degree or two (Freezing Point Depression directly the result of saline concentration). And there must be significant mixing currents.... cold, less saline water flowing into the Atlantic, mostly..... driving other currents like the Gulf Stream....

I don't think we can understand our weather without data enough to understand our Oceans.

So where is the research funding for studying this?????
 
Babe's Best Guesses...….

Let's say the oceans' top 2m (six feet) are a critical layer..... a better slice for evaluating climate than the "surface". A satellite can give us data on the surface temps the world over.... enough satellites with enough IR "eyes". Sure the surface likely corresponds to the 2m layer somewhat. It is mixed by wave action, wind....storms.... hurricanes... as well as currents. It is 72% of Earth's surface......

It has a "heat capacity" of over 1 calorie per milliliter per degree Fahrenheit. Our atmosphere down to sea level "weighs" about 14 lbs per square inch, with a "heat capacity" significantly lower than water......

hey.... here it is Kiddos....



lessee..... atmospheric pressure equals the pressure of about 14 feet depth of water.....

So that top "critical layer" of 6 feet of ocean has about 1/3 the mass of the entire atmosphere...….

and the oceans are, on average.... over 3000 feet deep. So how much heat will it take to change the oceans 1C? If our atmosphere goes up 1C, we could expect the oceans to eventually go up 1C, too, right?????

Well, anyway..... that was an awesome demonstration with the air and water balloons above.

The fact is the heat capacity per gram of water is 75 times that of air. Roughly, that figures to be as much heat in the top twenty inches of the ocean as the entire atmosphere.....
 
Last edited:
So, anyway..... here's my theory once again.....

A huge gigantic Earth "Thermostat" system involving surface icepacks and the oceans, with feedback mechanisms, that cycles us thorugh ice ages and interglacial warm epochs..... that is real, and orders of magnitude more powerful than atmospheric variances in CO2 on the scale of 240-720 ppm concentrations.
 
If we have a cycle in our water that deposits thousands of feet of ice----with half the heat capacity of liquid water and extreme reflectance..... that builds up cyclically during ice ages.... and cools our atmosphere more powerfully than typical CO2 concentrations can warm it...….

which is followed by cooling oceans which evaporate less moisture and reduce snowfall amounts annually below the meltoff amounts annually..... so that icepacks begin to decline..... but only slowly decline enough to alter the ocean temps at depth....

But eventually, after thousands of years of "warm" and the disappearance almost entirely of polar icepacks..... and massive outgassing of CO2 dissolved in those cold waters..... giving us a rapid rising "spike" in global temps..... enough to bring the oceans temps overall up a degree or two....

then we're set to start some snowpack accumulations once again on the poles....
 

The same kind of mass mesmerization/political propaganda/fake education that today is driving the AGW believers was used to kill Nuclear Power.

I am also following "Cold Fusion", now commonly referred to as "LENR" or "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", which is still a promising area for power generation. Cold Fusion was viciously and unscientifically attacked by the Fossil Fuel Cartels, who are in fact today driving the AGW cause.... think "Al Gore" and where his family moolah came from, BP and Standard Oil.

John D. Rockefeller, arguably the real R in the real "Republican Party", had the genius to see that supply is not the key to Cartel success..... Price is. He did everything to conceal the abundance of oil and put it out of production, cutting supplies as much as he could possibly achieve. Yes, he would do gas wars to run competitors outta business, then buy their holdings and shut them down.

JD had the further genius to see that where oil is concerned, the future belongs to those who don't produce their resources. "Use Theirs First" was his policy, and he was joined by the other majors..... we produced the oil in the Persian Gulf as matter of long-term policy to make sure they would not become actually the dominant geopolitical power center.

I concede the genius of both of these ideas, and in JD's place I would do the same if I could.

But it also meant that we could not allow Cold Fusion or Nuclear become the "only game in town". So what we have now, is, simply put......A grand scam scheme to convert oil reserves, coal reserves, into marketable "Carbon Credits", where we as a world pay the Cartelist Robber Barons not to produce their wares.... which they wanted to do in the first place.

Damn, I hate the genius of these scammers.

But we should not just let them run our world.
 
Last edited:

Global Warming Has Been Canceled: Key Greenland Glacier Has Expanded. Ocasio-Cortez Hardest Hit


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...ng-is-such-a-threat-that-it-caused-a-n2543745

Technically, the basic idea here is wrong. I mean the stupid gloating about a temporary return to glaciation driven by an ocean circulation oscillation that typically runs a few years.

What I expect to see in the shorter term of say 20-50 years, is the rapid warming the alarmists are beating fear-mongering drums about. And a lot more meltoff of our polar ice, and a rise in our ocean levels, and a corresponding decrease in overall salinity. While the salinity or expanding surface area of the oceans might not be significant, really, in numerical proportions, the decreasing cold water inflows and less vigorous mixing currents will mean large areas of warmer than now ocean surface and lots more evaporation. If the ocean temps overall have increased even 1 degree C, the impact will be huge. Hurricanes by the score, superstorms coming onshore.... During the winter, lots more snow in the polar areas.

A sharp spike in global temps, air or sea, for 10-50 years, will bring in the next Ice Age.
 
The Science Daily article mentioned the recent discovery of a young impact crater beneath the Greenland ice sheet. If the Younger Dryas cold snap was caused by a cometary or asteroid impact, this newly discovered crater may be its signature. It remains to be dated. All that is known at present is that it is between 3,000,000 and 12,000 years old, so it does date to the Pleistocene. It will be more tightly dated, eventually, so, at present all that is known is that it represents a fairly young crater. For comparison, Meteor Crater, Az. was formed by the impact of a nickel-iron meteorite circa 50,000 years ago.

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/...greenland-could-explain-ice-age-climate-swing

 
Top