I did look back and sure enough:
So that’s the level of competence that you’re dealing with here.
You started the thread, this “parade of clowns”, ergo you’re the grand marshal of a parade of clowns. IOW, you’re Bozo.
Yes, “warm front” isn’t the most common name for this phenomenon, but it isn’t exactly incorrect either. Typically this is called the “polar front” and is represented on weather maps and such as a “cold front”. It is persistent over climatological time intervals so it is correct to evaluate the polar front as climatically relevant.
Excellent application of Charles’ Law. This process has been going on for 15,000 years already and the ice core data shows many many examples of this in the past. It’s complete fair to say this is normal and expected within the current climate. Just adding a few degrees of temperature doesn’t change the fact that the polar regions are deserts.
The question revolves around ∆T (with respect to time), what is this value with the natural 250 ppmv CO[sub]2[/sub] and what is the value including man’s contribution, 400 ppmv and increasing. If this value is extremely small, then AGW theory becomes a trivial curiosity relegated to the garbage can along with radioactive decay within the Earth and double dynamos within the Sun … true, but insignificant.
Seriously, are we talking microwatts, or milliwatts per square meter?
Looking back, my response to that was
But you know, if you try to correct every wrong thing you come across on the internet, you will have no life. However, it was enjoyable looking back in time here. I didn’t pay much attention to the following Battle Pope post at the time. However
I think I’s getting a better idea of the black-or-white reasoning problem here. He followed that with a huge copy and past list.
At the time I didn’t look into it, but today it was delightful to find it comes with “scientific statements” from various scientific organizations. Actually they are called “Statements on climate change”, they are the bastions of the consensus, mostly supporting the IPCC statements.
I would usually agree with this sentiment, in fact, I still do. Certainly ranting dickheads are a bad source of information, and I never use them as sources.
Unless I am mocking somebody.
President Trump basically said the sky looks clear, he doesn’t see the problem.
It’s a very interesting discussion, thanks for introducing it. I will try and find my links to relevant data on this. One thing to keep in mind, is that the atmosphere itself is much different over the north pole (and southern pole, where it’s really different). The stratosphere begins much lower because the air is much denser there, because it’s really fucking cold. And yes, the Delta is huge, because of the seasonal changes in the amounts of sunlight.
Yah, that’s the seasonal delta, that’s why the annual temperature average isn’t perfect.
But its climate-forcing delta is a different thing. The ice is melting. The arctic absorbs more sunlight every year. The rest of the world absorbs about the same amount of sunlight every year.
There is a 10,000-year-old ice hunting culture among the Inuits in Greenland. They hunt arctic land and sea creatures from sleds pulled by dogs over the ice- again, they have been doing this for 10,000 years. But now, the ice is rotting in the heat, they really can’t subsist this way anymore, their young people are pursuing careers as dentists or truck drivers instead of ice hunters. The change coincides very well with the Industrial Revolution period. It appears human activity is warming the globe in an unusual way. Many conclusions follow.
I can’t blame you for being sick of it. The only thing to do is… something about it. No?
ETA: watchwolf: reveal your Delta symbol posting method!
Well, it isn’t really a function of square meters- area- so much as it is a function of volume. The % composition carbon of the entire volume of the atmosphere is increasing due to our activities, which prevents an increasing amount of infrared radiation leaving the Earth from making it into space, which increases the total energy present in the total Earth atmosphere. Local details may vary.
I will try to get you some numbers, though.
Since I was neither talking about you or to you, maybe you should just go back in the shed with the rest of the tools.
I realize that as a troll you crave attention but I assure you I wasn’t feeding you.
∆ … on Macs use “option”-j
∫ … “option”-b
∂ … “option”-d
Here’s the numbers I’ve looked at — Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget — and they’re using flux as their measure. It’s fairly simple to convert flux into power:
235 W m[sup]-2[/sup] x (4π x (6.37 x 10[sup]6[/sup] m)[sup]2[/sup]) ==> 235 W m[sup]-2[/sup] x (5.09 x 10[sup]14[/sup] m[sup]2[/sup]) ==> 1.20 x 10[sup]17[/sup] W (or joules per second)
So, every second of every day, the Earth system receives 1.20 x 10[sup]17[/sup] joules of energy and she radiates out 1.20 x 10[sup]17[/sup] joules. They are equal to three significant digits, meh, climate change using a second as a time interval doesn’t tell us very much. We know by using a thirty year time interval that the outbound flux is actually slightly less than inbound flux. We know this by measuring the total energy content of the Earth’s system’s atmosphere, which is directly proportional to temperature. Thus an small increase in temperature directly implies less outbound flux (assuming the solar flux is constant). Energy is strictly conserved.
Now let us calculate the ∆E for our projected global warming of +2ºC over the next 100 years and then per second:
(5.15 x 10[sup]21[/sup] g) x (1.00 J g[sup]-1[/sup] ºC[sup]-1[/sup]) x 2ºC ==> 1.03 x 10[sup]21[/sup] J per century, or (1.03 x 10[sup]21[/sup] J) / (3.15 x 10[sup]9[/sup] s per century) ==> 3.27 x 10[sup]11[/sup] J s[sup]-1[/sup] (or Watts).
So, from these numbers it can be seen that global warming involves trivial amounts of energy. The problem while debating climate change is that the energy to lite a billion light bulbs is not normally perceived as trivial. This is assuming the oceans aren’t absorbing any energy at all, and liquid water has about four times the heat capacity as dry air.
My point here is that these levels of energies aren’t enough to change the current climate, not enough energy to bring maritime Pacific air into St Louis, so St Louis will always be a continental climate, not enough energy to bring humid air to the poles, so Antarctica will always be a desert climate. It going to take millions of years to bring temperatures up to the levels we saw in the mid-Cretaceous. I’m sorry, I just can’t get weepy and boo-hoo-ing over having to add three lousy feet to our seawalls in the next 100 hundred years, something the Dutch have been doing for close to a thousand years.
Climate change using ten million year intervals … now there’s a tale worth telling.
Just copy the ∆ symbol, then save it (like in your sig file) to use later.
The problem of the energy and global climate change has been around since the start of the discovery of global climate change.
At it’s core, the basic global warming theory (the greenhouse theory of climate change) is about how small changes from solar forcing leading to changes in CO2, which then causes all the rest of the changes.
This sun thing seems like a real problem. We should find a way to get rid of it.
An on-off switch, maybe.
On the big screen they showed us a sun
But not as bright in life as the real one
It’s never quite the same as the real one
Liberal TV personality speaks out against Warmists. Let’s place his words on the record.
[QUOTE=Jon Stewart]
We can’t do anything because we don’t yet know everything. We cannot take action on climate change until everyone in the world agrees gay marriage vaccines won’t cause our children to marry goats who are going to come for our guns.
[/QUOTE]
Think of all the lonely sheep out there …
This thread really needs to continue because FX hasn’t reached 2000 posts in it yet.
Seems like he’s losing ground on the stupidity of Republicans …
I frequently just don’t have the time to keep up with the 'dope, so let’s examine just the first example. Can you explain how this picture explains how my statement is wrong? I appreciate the data about the jet stream, but this seems to support what I suspect- that the jet stream is dragging arctic air into the North American cooling zone. Look, it comes down out of Alaska and ends up over the Great Lakes, pretty much where the cool zone is. The jet stream tends to blow along a front. The polar front is expanding due to arctic atmospheric expansion. When the jet stream is adjacent to that, it picks up a lot more cold air than during a normal period because of the cold air expanding into it, and relocates it.
You said this cooling couldn’t be explained. I could be wrong, but if not, it’s explained.