Climate Change is a Hoax

[lost_shaman]

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Although coastal versus non-coastal is fun, perhaps we should also all review where the Arctic Circle is.

Hint, neither Mcgrath, nor Fairbanks, nor Anchorage is within it.

That doesn't matter as warming is not strictly confined to the "Arctic Circle" just as the "Polar Vortex" is not confined to that definition of geologic space. 

[lost_shaman]

9 hours ago, rashore said:

You folks often go over my head with the science in this thread, but I'm honestly trying to place into context what coastal and open waters mean here.

In this context... does Humidity depend on an "Open water" source 150 miles away? 

I was assuming NO. Doug is saying YES! Maybe someone other than Doug and I must judge. Any way I'm not willing to concede that 150+ miles equates to coastal conditions.

[Alchopwn]

54 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

In this context... does Humidity depend on an "Open water" source 150 miles away? 

I was assuming NO. Doug is saying YES! Maybe someone other than Doug and I must judge. Any way I'm not willing to concede that 150+ miles equates to coastal conditions.

A shoreline doesn't just mean a beach, or even extended sand dunes.  The coastal conditions include all the areas where wind can carry evaporation from the sea inland.  All coastal areas have higher rainfall than areas that are more landlocked, even if they are in a rainshadow.  For example, even the Atacama desert, which is the dryest place on earth, and sits in the rainshadow of the Andes gets pretty much all its water from sea mists.  As another example, I live about 15 miles from the Atlantic, but on some mornings I wake up to see that a sea wind has deposited salt on my car's windscreen overnight.  I am surprised you didn't learn about this in highschool geography.  Can wind carry moisture 150+ miles inland?  Yes.  Will it happen every day?  Unlikely, except in Egypt, where the wind off the Mediterranean is super reliable at carrying water straight up the Nile valley.  That wind is the reason that ancient egyptians could sail upriver.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The Arctic is a desert, one of the driest place on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_desert

 

Br Cornelius

[lost_shaman]

8 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

A shoreline doesn't just mean a beach, or even extended sand dunes.  The coastal conditions include all the areas where wind can carry evaporation from the sea inland.  All coastal areas have higher rainfall than areas that are more landlocked, even if they are in a rainshadow.  For example, even the Atacama desert, which is the dryest place on earth, and sits in the rainshadow of the Andes gets pretty much all its water from sea mists.  As another example, I live about 15 miles from the Atlantic, but on some mornings I wake up to see that a sea wind has deposited salt on my car's windscreen overnight.  I am surprised you didn't learn about this in highschool geography.  Can wind carry moisture 150+ miles inland?  Yes.  Will it happen every day?  Unlikely, except in Egypt, where the wind off the Mediterranean is super reliable at carrying water straight up the Nile valley.  That wind is the reason that ancient egyptians could sail upriver.

McGarth AK is not considered Coastal. That was my point.

[lost_shaman]

9 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

The Arctic is a desert, one of the driest place on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_desert

 

Br Cornelius

No. There is a desert condition in the Arctic, the Arctic itself is not a desert.

 

[Guest Br Cornelius]

2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No. There is a desert condition in the Arctic, the Arctic itself is not a desert.

 

I am not going to argue with you but you are simply wrong. The Arctic and the Antarctic are by the standard definition deserts.

 

Br Cornelius

[Grim Reaper 6]

Anyone who doesn't beleive in Climate Change, most likely also doesn't beleive in the Holocaust, or the Moon Landing. Now that's ok because it doesn't really matter anyway, because it's happening and opinions will not change it. Life as we know it is going change whether its man made or not it's happening and we all are going to have to live with it. Our children will pay the price for our lack of action, and that is very sad because it's every parents responsible to protect their children. Know ones lack of knowledge is an excuse for their actions, so whether you beleive or not doesn't really matter.

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, rashore said:

To interrupt with some ignorance for a bit if you folks don't mind...

What's considered coastal? Like walking/quick drive to the shore kind of thing which can be just a couple/few miles... or more like hurricane coastal which can be more like 100 miles inland.

And what does open water mean? Growing up in the great lakes region, weather was what blew off the open waters of Minnesota and Wisconsin had and effect on how weather and beach eating/deposits built up on the East side of Lake Michigan. What rolled along Michigan then passed onto the lakes to the east of that and so on.

You folks often go over my head with the science in this thread, but I'm honestly trying to place into context what coastal and open waters mean here.

"Coastal" means anything close enough to the ocean to be affected by its climate, which can be several hundred miles.  Most of the eastern United States is downwind from the Gulf.  Hurricanes even reach the eastern Great Lakes.  BTW:  I'm from northeast Ohio - lake effect country.

Doug

[Doug1029]

15 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

The closest open water is over 150 miles away from McGrath. Or look at Fairbanks, in the next 7 days 51% humidity is the lowest forecast. Are you going to say Fairbanks is coastal too?

At any rate your hypothesis is antithetical to the evidence. Temperatures are not rising due to decreased Humidity as you falsely believe.

Cold-caused drought in central Alaska is a winter-time phenomenon.  So why are you trying to refute that with summer-time readings?  Your argument is irrelevant.

And, no.  Temperatures are not risintg due to increased humidity.  I didn't say they were.  They are rising in DRY areas - like dry deserts and the continental Arctic in winter time.  If you are actually reading what is being posted, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

BUT:  Humidity is rising in Oklahoma, Kansas and even in Vernon, Texas.  That has been the case since about 1960.  Droughts are getting shorter, less intense and of shorter duration.  You can find the data for it here:  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/drought/pdsi2004/data-by-gridpt/

BTW:  That same site has the drought data for central Alaska.  Feel free to check it out and compoare it with coastal areas.

Also, "the continental Arctic" refers more to northern Canada and Siberia than it does to central Alaska.

Doug

Edited July 19, 2019 by Doug1029

[Alchopwn]

4 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Anyone who doesn't believe in Climate Change, most likely also doesn't beleive in the Holocaust, or the Moon Landing. 

I think you hit the nail on the head there.   Most who don't believe in Climate change, also do not, in fact, believe in the Holocaust or the Moon Landing.  They do however beleive in some other things, such as Balaam's talking ass, racial theory, the flat earth, and all manner of conspiracy.  In fact one might say that such is their belief in conspiracy, and their suspicion of other humans, that it quite eclipses their reason.  Of conspiracy they make a religion, and of religion they manufacture atrocity.  They form a ball and chain, dragging behind the rest of humanity as a dead weight, retarding progress, and all because they saw a YouTube video or two and now think they are meteorologists.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I think this misunderstands the denier somewhat. Most climate deniers are motivated by some other foundational belief - usually generally the belief in God and the inability of man to effect his creation, or economics and the incompatibility of climate responses to free market theory. The foundational idea is far more important to them than the overwhelming mountain evidence refuting their narrative.

As lost Shaman has demonstrated it takes considerable intellectual effort to construct a coherent narrative of disbelief, a lot of reading and filtering out of incompatible alternatives, active effort to distort basic facts to the narrative.

Of course there are also the stupid deniers who haven't really thought about anything, but I suspect these are not the majority.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

19 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Although coastal versus non-coastal is fun, perhaps we should also all review where the Arctic Circle is.

Hint, neither Mcgrath, nor Fairbanks, nor Anchorage is within it.

"Would you know what hell can be,

Go you north of sixty-three."

--Robert Service

 

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I think you hit the nail on the head there.   Most who don't believe in Climate change, also do not, in fact, believe in the Holocaust or the Moon Landing.  They do however beleive in some other things, such as Balaam's talking ass, racial theory, the flat earth, and all manner of conspiracy.  In fact one might say that such is their belief in conspiracy, and their suspicion of other humans, that it quite eclipses their reason.  Of conspiracy they make a religion, and of religion they manufacture atrocity.  They form a ball and chain, dragging behind the rest of humanity as a dead weight, retarding progress, and all because they saw a YouTube video or two and now think they are meteorologists.

I once did a study that included Balaam.  Seems he was a real-life shaman.  He was a sun priest of Baal who worshipped at a cave on Mt. Nebo.  That cave has quite a history, too.

Balaam's talking ass?  For that, I have no explanation.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

9 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

I am not going to argue with you but you are simply wrong. The Arctic and the Antarctic are by the standard definition deserts.

 

Br Cornelius

None of the place I mentioned except Utqiagvik meet the definition of a desert. Nor is the warming strictly confined to places that do meet that definition ( < 10 inches annual precipitation). 

[lost_shaman]

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

And, no.  Temperatures are not risintg due to increased humidity.  I didn't say they were.  They are rising in DRY areas - like dry deserts and the continental Arctic in winter time.  If you are actually reading what is being posted, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

The warming in the Arctic has nothing to do with dry conditions it is from sea Ice loss and Arctic amplification where heat from the Tropics is transported to the Poles.

Edit: And this will happen from any cause of warming.

Edited July 19, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Guest Br Cornelius]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

None of the place I mentioned except Utqiagvik meet the definition of a desert. Nor is the warming strictly confined to places that do meet that definition ( < 10 inches annual precipitation). 

So when  you cherry pick you can be true. The Arctic and the Antarctic are still defined as desert (but not all of it).

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

53 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

The warming in the Arctic has nothing to do with dry conditions it is from sea Ice loss and Arctic amplification where heat from the Tropics is transported to the Poles.

Edit: And this will happen from any cause of warming.

Warming in the Arctic is greatest in winter in continental areas a long way from the sea.  Places like Siberia and northern Alberta.  It is less so in areas close to the coast.

Bintanja, R., R. Graverson and W. Hazeleger.  2011.  Arctic winter warming amplified by the thermal inversion and consequent low infrared cooling to space.  Nature Geoscience 4:758-761.

Yes.  Sea ice, snow and surface albedo all play a part in SUMMER warming.  They aren't directly connected to CO2.  But WINTER warming is effected in large part by a surface inversion that holds warmer air against the ground, allowing the escape of heat to space at higher altitudes.

Thermal inversions are particularly common in the lee of mountain ranges.  Where are the mountain ranges?  The inversions form to the east of them.

Denver is besieged each year by inversions that hold pollution against the mountains.  Car exhaust builds up below the inversion layer, creatinga serious health hazard.  That's why Colorado has outlawed alcohol-free gas.  Dever is not Ft. Resolution, but the same priniples apply.

Doug

[.AKUMA.]

4146 posts in this thread and no an inch closer to the truth

so lets look at this from a logical point of view.

Is the earth warming? well evidence seems to suggest so.

is the climate changing? Yes i dont think anyone here can deny that.

Why is it changing? perhaps the biggest point of debate, is it man made? is it a natural earth cycle seen many times before? is it the sun?

and that is where we have the issue on debating this.

it has been atleast to a certain degree all of those things above :/

[lost_shaman]

47 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

They aren't directly connected to CO2. 

Neither are Winter thermal inversions.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Quote

The Largest Desert

The two largest deserts on Earth are in the polar areas. The Antarctic Polar Desert covers the continent of Antarctica and has a size of about 5.5 million square miles. The second-largest desert is the Arctic Polar Desert. It extends over parts of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. It has a surface area of about 5.4 million square miles.

http://www.arcticworld.net/

Regarding the quantum mechanics mechanism of heat retention by CO2, this might have been addressed to Lost Shaman:

 

Quote

No, this vision is (mostly) incorrect. In more detail :

1)

Any molecule having a non zero electrical dipolar momentum will interact with the electromagnetic radiation. In the QM vocabulary it will absorb and emit photons. The CO2 molecule has 3 vibration modes and 2 of them produce an electrical dipole. The vibration energies of these modes are quantized and have energy levels En. For the first excited mode E1-E0 = h.f provides the 2 photons frequencies that will be absorbed/emitted at strongest. Their wavelengths happen to be 4µ and 15 µ what puts them squarely in the IR spectrum where Earth radiates.

So the first part of your vision was correct. CO2 but mostly H20 strongly absorb and emit photons in infrared. Because of Kirchhoff's law, this activity is a zero sum game, e.g the CO2 molecules absorb exactly as much as they emit. There is therefore no net heating of the atmosphere by IR.

2)

There is no net energy transfer by "thermalisation". Indeed a vibrationnally excited CO2 molecule may collide with an N2 molecule, decay from E1 to E0 and transfer E1-E0 to the kinetic energy of the N2 molecule. However the inverse process exists too - an N2 molecule transfers E1-E0 to an unexcited CO2 molecule making its vibrational energy going from E0 to E1. In steady state both rates are obviously equal and there is no "heating up". Also common sense tells us that if there were a net energy transfer, the N2 molecules' temperature would diverge and reach an ultrarelativistic plasma rather fast.

It follows that the collisional processes are also a zero sum game

3)

The right vision is then that in a mixture of 1 GHG gaz (non zero dipole like H20) and 1 non GHG gaz (zero dipole like N2), the GHG gaz will absorb and emit in the infrared spectrum and it will absorb exactly as much as it emits. The non GHG gaz lets everything pass through. Beside the radiation process which involves only the GHG gaz, there are collisions that involve both the GHG and the non GHG gaz. The role of this process is to make sure that the radiatively active GHG gaz and the non radiatively active gaz stay both at the same temperature. In steady state there is then no net energy transfer by collision between both species.

The fact that a GHG - non GHG mixture will be warmer than the case with non GHG only is an effect of density of radiation. Indeed in a non GHG atmosphere the radiation energy density is constant from the bottom to the top because the radiation goes through with a constant rate. As the matter doesn't interact with radiation, it just adds its own kinetic energy to the overall energy density.

In the case of GHG - non GHG mixture, the absorption/emission processes have for effect to decrease the photons' mean free path and thus to increase the radiation energy density as compared to the non GHG case. The GHG matter interacts with radiation in this case and its equilibrium temperature will be higher than in the non GHG case because of the higher energy density. The collisions will then make sure that the non GHG gaz will be at the same temperature as the GHG gaz. The overall result is that the whole GHG atmosphere will be at a higher temperature than the non GHG atmosphere.

Important caveat.

In the above I was describing the radiative and collisional processes only. In the real atmosphere add convection, phase change (evaporation, condensation etc), albedo changes and conduction. There is no reason to believe that these energy transfer processes are not impacted by radiation. Therefore making the jump from a GHG-non GHG mixture to a real atmosphere involves an implicit "all other things being equal" hypothesis which allows a qualitative conclusion but would be wrong for a quantitative conclusion.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11444/how-is-the-mechanism-of-greenhouse-gases-interacting-with-ir-radiation

The important thing to note is that a quantum absorption is quantisized to a fixed energy of  15u or 4u, and the re-emission is similarly quantisized with the exact same photon energy of 15u or 4u. This energy is not reduced and is available to re-excite another CO2 molecule and can carry on doing so until eventually is released at the top of the atmosphere after multiple absorption's and re-emissions. The mechanism of warming is to reduce the free path length and increase the overall energy density of the system.

Thats strike two for fundamental misunderstandings of basic science.

If you can get these basics so utterly wrong, you have to ask yourself - what else have you got wrong.

My guess is everything.

Br Cornelius

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Br Cornelius

[lost_shaman]

4 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

Any molecule having a non zero electrical dipolar momentum will interact with the electromagnetic radiation. In the QM vocabulary it will absorb and emit photons. The CO2 molecule has 3 vibration modes and 2 of them produce an electrical dipole.

Right off the bat this is wrong. CO2 as a linear molecule (Linear molecules = 3N-5 degrees of freedom for vibration) with 3 atoms has 4 vibrational modes one is IR inactive (Symmetrical C=O stretch = IR inactive) the other 3 are IR active.

Asymmetrical C=O stretch

Symmetrical C=O stretch ( IR inactive)

Two C=O bending modes

 

4 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

This energy is not reduced and is available to re-excite another CO2 molecule and can carry on doing so until eventually is released at the top of the atmosphere after multiple absorption's and re-emissions. The mechanism of warming is to reduce the free path length and increase the overall energy density of the system.

This doesn't happen in Earth's atmosphere. In the troposphere atmospheric pressure is high enough that  CO2 molecules that get excited by absorbing a 15 um photon from the Surface Black Body Radiation have over a 99.94% non-radiative decay from collisions with other molecules. i.e. the energy gets transferred to the atmosphere kinetically without a photon being re-emitted. 

Quote

Thats strike two for fundamental misunderstandings of basic science.

If you can get these basics so utterly wrong, you have to ask yourself - what else have you got wrong.

My guess is everything.

I thought I asked you not to project your failings onto me. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by lost_shaman

[tmcom]

12 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I think you hit the nail on the head there.   Most who don't believe in Climate change, also do not, in fact, believe in the Holocaust or the Moon Landing.  They do however beleive in some other things, such as Balaam's talking ass, racial theory, the flat earth, and all manner of conspiracy.  In fact one might say that such is their belief in conspiracy, and their suspicion of other humans, that it quite eclipses their reason.  Of conspiracy they make a religion, and of religion they manufacture atrocity.  They form a ball and chain, dragging behind the rest of humanity as a dead weight, retarding progress, and all because they saw a YouTube video or two and now think they are meteorologists.

Lol, of course we are, and for your information quickdraw, l don't believe in flat earth, (overwhelming evidence, remember that word, "evidence") or the moon landing being fake or the holocost or Balaams, (probably Eugenics, that l don't believe in either, in the if you nose is big, you are stupid).

Or conspiricy religion, blah, blah, blah, you sound so clever, but it all comes down to hard evidence, (not the dodgy see spot run evidence, real evidence).

Ball and chain, lol. True throw us down a hole somewhere it worked for the Aztecs, (well it did for a while).

 

Now lets get back to reality, l present a video on the mad thread, by a world leader expert on climate, change, (and well respected). He says that there isn't any, and anyone who believes in the end is nigh are nuts!

Then we have Gores, 2006 failed predictions, based on 900 PRW, 13 years later nothing, no flooding, no icecaps disappearing, and the endless list goes on.

 

So there isn't any end is nigh no tipping point, no spend a zilloin to fix this, no Bill Gates fairy dust to fix this, just ....witted greenies, with too much of a grasp on power, and others who cannot let go of the gov, teat.

 

As for the religious part, someone who is sane will look at all evidence, and make a, (l don't give a s***t) call on all of this, or in other words, can see the inconsistences, almost 100 years of failed predictions, and tampering by what used to be reputable organizations.

 

And a religious nut, will also look at it all, ignore, dismiss, (use the oil company is behind it) and find any weak reason why all of the evidence that MMGW is a stickin pile,.........isn't a stinkin pile......

Real evidence seperates the fanatic from the sane, but l forget we are at the tipping point, so as long as we run about like chicken little with its head cut off, and act like we are doing something then we can go down with the ship with a clean conscience.

5 hours ago, .AKUMA. said:

4146 posts in this thread and no an inch closer to the truth

so lets look at this from a logical point of view.

Is the earth warming? well evidence seems to suggest so.

is the climate changing? Yes i dont think anyone here can deny that.

Why is it changing? perhaps the biggest point of debate, is it man made? is it a natural earth cycle seen many times before? is it the sun?

and that is where we have the issue on debating this.

it has been atleast to a certain degree all of those things above :/

Plenty of solid evidence to show that MMGW is a Hoax, but unfortunately too many nutcases.

[lost_shaman]

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

And, no.  Temperatures are not risintg due to increased humidity.  I didn't say they were.  They are rising in DRY areas - like dry deserts and the continental Arctic in winter time.  If you are actually reading what is being posted, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Ok lets look at some Alaskan Warming anomalies. 

For January 2019.

For Feb. 2019.

 

You can clearly see the Mid to Northern Alaskan State Coastal Cities experienced more warming than the States Interior Cites during these deep Winter months this year. This observation is completely antithetical to your point you are trying to make.

* Images from http://akclimate.org/

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Quote

This doesn't happen in Earth's atmosphere. In the troposphere atmospheric pressure is high enough that  CO2 molecules that get excited by absorbing a 15 um photon from the Surface Black Body Radiation have over a 99.94% non-radiative decay from collisions with other molecules. i.e. the energy gets transferred to the atmosphere kinetically without a photon being re-emitted. 

Quote

I accounts for 50% of the CO2 caused IR heating.

 

Br Cornelius