Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Hurricanes and climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Furthermore, CO2 is a trace gas and such a miniscule part of our total atmosphere that whatever effect it has on the global climate is negligible.
    So negligible that we can detect its absorption bands from space, and it has completely saturated some regions of the spectrum. As in, there are areas of the IR spectrum that no photons can pass through the Earth's atmosphere because of that negligible amount of CO2.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      I'm not saying that Co2 doesn't have an effect, but how much does man produce as compared to nature? I have read that we put in about 2% of the total - is that really enough to drive all this? Or could there be forces or variables involved like we saw in the D-O climate cycles that we do not understand?
      Natural sources and sinks are very large compared to human emissions. But the natural sources and sinks were roughly in balance - on a given year, about as much CO2 gets put into the atmosphere without us as gets removed. While the human contribution is a small fraction of the overall flux, it shifts the balance so that CO2 is now accumulating in the atmosphere.

      Think of the atmosphere like a bathtub with the drain open. Natural sources are pouring water into the tub at the same rate as the drain's capacity to remove it. If we start pouring some water in as well, no matter how little compared to the other sources, it'll start accumulating in the tub.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

        Think of the atmosphere like a bathtub with the drain open. Natural sources are pouring water into the tub at the same rate as the drain's capacity to remove it. If we start pouring some water in as well, no matter how little compared to the other sources, it'll start accumulating in the tub.
        Well in the past, when the earth was much warmer, was that because it was all out of balance? And was the continual warming from the ice age on caused by Co2 imbalance?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          Standard measures of hurricane strength are pressure in the eye and sustained wind speed.

          And it would be "stronger than at a point where the earth was cooler". In practical terms, we don't have much organized record keeping before the 1960s, though there are extensive historic reconstructions in many areas that go back for centuries, based on whether sand shows up in sediment records.
          Okay, thank you.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #35
            LOL! The NIPCC is a fake science panel set up by the Heartland Institute, one on the most notorious fossil-fuel funded climate change denier political organizations on the planet. If they reported the sky was blue at noon on a cloudless day I'd still go outside to check.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Well in the past, when the earth was much warmer, was that because it was all out of balance? And was the continual warming from the ice age on caused by Co2 imbalance?
              Do you think because naturally occurring forest fires occurred in the past that means a fire we see today can't be arson? Even though we've found the burned matches and the emptied gasoline can?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                The NIPCC is a fake science panel...
                Source: Heartland.org

                ...the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [is] an international network of climate scientists created in 2003 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, one of the world’s most distinguished physicists. NIPCC is currently a project of three independent organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute.

                NIPCC’s series of reports, titled Climate Change Reconsidered, has been highly praised by real scientists and cited more than 100 times in peer-reviewed journals. The first two volumes in the series were translated into Chinese and published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

                https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...nn-and-oreskes

                © Copyright Original Source

                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  So negligible that we can detect its absorption bands from space, and it has completely saturated some regions of the spectrum. As in, there are areas of the IR spectrum that no photons can pass through the Earth's atmosphere because of that negligible amount of CO2.
                  OK... and? Nobody is saying that CO2 doesn't exist in our atmosphere. What we are saying, and what credible peer-reviewed studies have shown, is that it has a negligible affect on the global climate.

                  Could it have an effect? Sure, it's possible. But whatever impact it has is impossible to separate from the much more significant sources causing climatic fluctuations. The fact that the planets in the solar system are warming and cooling more or less in sync with the earth should tell you that it's not the CO2. This suggests that the sun is the biggest contributor to climate change.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    Do you think because naturally occurring forest fires occurred in the past that means a fire we see today can't be arson? Even though we've found the burned matches and the emptied gasoline can?
                    Well considering the amount of CO2 man puts out as compared to nature it would like comparing a naturally caused forest fire to a camp fire.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      To understand hurricane trends over time and global warming you have to think global trends and the causes, and not just the trends of Atlantic hurricanes.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Source: Heartland.org

                        ...the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [is] an international network of climate scientists created in 2003 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, one of the world’s most distinguished physicists. NIPCC is currently a project of three independent organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute.

                        NIPCC’s series of reports, titled Climate Change Reconsidered, has been highly praised by real scientists and cited more than 100 times in peer-reviewed journals. The first two volumes in the series were translated into Chinese and published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

                        https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...nn-and-oreskes

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        LOL! You support the Heartland's fake climate change panel by C&Ping a description from the Heartland home page.

                        The Flat Earth Society claims they are a real science organization too. Do you swallow their hooey just as easily?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          OK... and? Nobody is saying that CO2 doesn't exist in our atmosphere. What we are saying, and what credible peer-reviewed studies have shown, is that it has a negligible affect on the global climate.
                          You haven't posted any credible peer-reviewed studies to back your claim. You've blindly C&Ped unsupported nonsense from well know fossil-fuel funded political AGW denier websites. Sorry but the scientific community is nowhere near as gullible as you seem to be.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seer
                            I'm not saying that Co2 doesn't have an effect, but how much does man produce as compared to nature? I have read that we put in about 2% of the total - is that really enough to drive all this? ... Well considering the amount of CO2 man puts out as compared to nature it would like comparing a naturally caused forest fire to a camp fire.
                            Humans are the almost exclusively the sole cause of the rise in CO2 these past decades. Except for volcanos (less than a few percent of our emissions), and a few other natural sources, we're the only net CO2 emitter. When trees and leaves, and animal remains rot they also release CO2, however that CO2 exists in a natural cycle. No carbon is added to it. You get a spike of CO2 in the fall, and a drop in CO2 during spring, year after year, swinging around a certain average. Humans add CO2. We did up old sequestered carbon from dying algae and other things that sunk to the bottom of the oceans, and got compressed, heated and turned into a hydrocarbon black slurry over a period of millions of years. We're adding that back to nature.

                            Nature isn't drilling oil and burning it on its own. That carbon would have stayed down there forever without us drilling it up. So adding it back causes there to be more carbon in the cycle. More carbon in the cycle causes more net CO2 to be there on average, which is exactly what we see. Check this graph of CO2, notice the yearly oscilations? But notice how its all trending upwards. We're the cause of that.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seer
                              Or could there be forces or variables involved like we saw in the D-O climate cycles that we do not understand?
                              You might get a bit frustrated when I say, but that article was talking specifically and exclusively about Greenland. I know there's another line in there talking about 'the variability of Earth's climate', but at no point in the article did it talk about the global temperature going up. It was only a discussion about an entirely local phenomenon, and local phenomonens like this are harder to understand because they depend on upon understanding weather. The global average temperature isn't as affected by weather as some local part is, but by is determined by the total energy content of the atmosphere, and the total content can't just disappear somewhere else.

                              There are cycle that explain the Ice Age. There's a big one about the wobble of the Earth's rotation which is more than ten thousand year long called the Milankovich Cycle. It explains a very slow, periodic temperature variation. It can't however explain the sudden rise in temperature since the seventies. CO2 driving a greenhouse effect can however.

                              Well in the past, when the earth was much warmer, was that because it was all out of balance? And was the continual warming from the ice age on caused by Co2 imbalance?
                              Yes.

                              There was a lot more carbon in the atmosphere back then, a lot more CO2. It got eaten up by plants, and algae and other things over millions of years, slowly dwindling down. We're releasing that stuff back into the atmosphere again since we use the oil and coal to drive our fossil fuel based industry.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The fact that the planets in the solar system are warming and cooling more or less in sync with the earth
                                We don't have any good data on global temperatures of other planets. We have some local weather data, but its very difficult to extrapolate that to the temperature of an entire planet. I'm personally all for launching weather satellites and thousands of monitoring stations to all the planets to start a more detailed survey, but we really only have a few data points from the probes that visited them, and the very limited data we can get from our telescopes on Earth.

                                Pluto is getting warmer though, but we don't really understand why. We don't have data on Jupiter, but models (those things you climate dissenters don't like? ) predict that its equator is going to be heating up. Having nothing to do with changing solar activity.

                                should tell you that it's not the CO2. This suggests that the sun is the biggest contributor to climate change.
                                That would be difficult as the sun is actually slightly cooling at the moment.

                                However its not really that much, just a minute intensity variation that occurs periodically over a decade or so. The sun is very stable. Some try to correlate sun spots, or magnetic fields, or some sort of anything measurable on the sun with a temperature increase, but that's just correlation hunting. Correlations are easy, but its only significant when you have a model that shows how a change in one variable causes a change in another variable. There isn't really something like that for the Sun.

                                I'm personally fascinated by other things that unexpectedly might have a minor impact on the Earth's climate, and I was interested in the idea that a decrease in the Sun's magnetic field might cause more cosmic radiation to seed clouds on Earth, increasing albedo and cooling the Earth slighty. The big problem with this model is that we can't show enough water cluster ions being produced by cosmic radiation. They conducted experiments with cloud chambers at CERN, and they were off by at least a factor of a billion from what is needed. Currently they're trying to see if there's some catalyst not thought of that could still create seeds, but at the moment the hypothesis is doing very poorly in terms of evidence.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X