Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Merc14

Climate models wrong

156 posts in this topic

This might be a cool new innovation...

 Three months after activating its 4-acre solar array along Holtzclaw Avenue, utility provider EPB is tying the power generated by the sun into a new type of flow battery that officials hope could be a model for modernizing the power grid.

Chattanooga's municipal power utility on Friday energized a 100 kilowatt vanadium redox flow battery that researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory developed and which Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers will study.

The battery is a new type of technology that utilities could use to supplement or even substitute for some substations to ensure that electricity keeps flowing even when its generation source or transmission line is knocked offline.

cont...

http://www.govtech.com/fs/news/new-battery-holds-promise-for-substation-supplementation-substitution.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Can you?

No I can't explain whatever it is you are going on about. Besides it is your claim, it is your responsibility to explain and evidence your claim. What I can say is the explanation you attempted to give here about H2O droplets scattering IR radiation to the point that CO2 absorption activity stops is just plain wrong. 

Quote

BTW:  just how do you think the poles are accomplishing their amplification of a natural trend?  What is the mechanism?

Part of your claim is that it is drier at the poles and this amplifies warming. I have already pointed you to one reason there is more warming at the poles and that is because large weather patterns in the mid-latitudes transport heat to the poles. This obviously is not the entire picture as the poles have high albedo snow and ice that can vary greatly in extent and thus these regions have major potential changes in albedo that effect surface temperatures. Another major factor is that convection is suppressed at the poles and this allows for the upper layer of the Troposphere to be stable due to lack of turbulence so all the heating near the surface stays concentrated in the lower layers of the Troposphere as opposed to the heat being mixed throughout the entire Troposphere as it happens at the Tropics and mid-latitudes.

That latter point is important because without vertical heat transport of latent heat the Earth's temperature goes from 15 C to somewhere about 72 C. So it is easy to see how even a small suppression of convection at the poles and a stable layer in the Troposphere limiting the heating to the lower layers at the poles can have a large amplifying effect.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2017 at 9:08 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Here are two papers on the "global warming fingerprint."  As you can see, the science is going beyond just the wet-area/dry-area issue, but includes it as one of the variables.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<2281:DGGICC>2.0.CO;2

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs003820050186?LI=true

There are more.  Use Google Scholar.

So it took me a day to get the first paper to download and I took a day to read. In a thread where we are discussing the Models being wrong, these are two ~25 year old papers about using models to find an AGW signal in the Models that are programmed to have an AGW signal.  There is nothing in either of those papers that verify anything you are suggesting.

you_had_one_job.jpg.b60f4110477a41ba3d9f4def62501f4a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 4:29 AM, lost_shaman said:

No I can't explain whatever it is you are going on about. Besides it is your claim, it is your responsibility to explain and evidence your claim. What I can say is the explanation you attempted to give here about H2O droplets scattering IR radiation to the point that CO2 absorption activity stops is just plain wrong. 

Part of your claim is that it is drier at the poles and this amplifies warming. I have already pointed you to one reason there is more warming at the poles and that is because large weather patterns in the mid-latitudes transport heat to the poles. This obviously is not the entire picture as the poles have high albedo snow and ice that can vary greatly in extent and thus these regions have major potential changes in albedo that effect surface temperatures. Another major factor is that convection is suppressed at the poles and this allows for the upper layer of the Troposphere to be stable due to lack of turbulence so all the heating near the surface stays concentrated in the lower layers of the Troposphere as opposed to the heat being mixed throughout the entire Troposphere as it happens at the Tropics and mid-latitudes.

That latter point is important because without vertical heat transport of latent heat the Earth's temperature goes from 15 C to somewhere about 72 C. So it is easy to see how even a small suppression of convection at the poles and a stable layer in the Troposphere limiting the heating to the lower layers at the poles can have a large amplifying effect.

 

 

 

What I am talking about is the global warming fingerprint - greater warming in dry places.  While your explanation of storms carrying heat poleward may explain the temperature rise in the north, it doesn't do a thing to explain temperature rise in places like Oklahoma and the Sahel.

I am about to leave for a conference and vacation, so you will soon be talking to yourself.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

What I am talking about is the global warming fingerprint - greater warming in dry places.  While your explanation of storms carrying heat poleward may explain the temperature rise in the north, it doesn't do a thing to explain temperature rise in places like Oklahoma and the Sahel.

I am about to leave for a conference and vacation, so you will soon be talking to yourself.

Doug

A UK comedian - I forget which one - quipped that global warming is being caused by all the hot air produced at the endless conferences held by climate change scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

A UK comedian - I forget which one - quipped that global warming is being caused by all the hot air produced at the endless conferences held by climate change scientists.

I can see his point-of-view.  But this is a dendrochronology conference.  We'll talk about climate and reading weather signatures from tree rings, but we'll also talk about dating old Viking ships and log cabins and the like.  I used tree rings to determine a 100-year flood plain, so I'll be talking about how I did it.  There will be other break-out sessions about using false rings to identify passing cold fronts and tracing chemical pollutants and the like.  Sounds interesting.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.