.. "mitigation" (?) .. creative adjustment. (?)

[richard mann]

-
Formerly, a thread entitled, ..
 
"Climate Disruption". ...


But the "... probably nothing of anything of any consequence going on", gang / ".. all bogus science, anyway", "crew" ... Trampled all over it.  
 
Enjoy, if your of a similar persuasion. .... And "God Bless".  
 
 
.... "unclear". ?  —>  http://theweatherforums.com/index.php?/topic/227-the-other-side-of-the-question/?p=27733

[chinook]

I think disruption is not the right choice of wording but I see what they are trying to convey.

[Andie]

So, now the President is going to save the planet by signing new climate change regulations.

So lets see, while America, the 4% of the worlds population, is going to clamp down on emissions and increase taxes and regs, the other 96% is buying our coal and building 4 coal fired plants per month.

I get it. yeah.

So now that Obamacare is an epic fail, were moving on to bigger and better things.

I'm going to file this right after QE1, QE 2, and QE 3.

 

[weatherfan2012]

So, now the President is going to save the planet by signing new climate change regulations.

So lets see, while America, the 4% of the worlds population, is going to clamp down on emissions and increase taxes and regs, the other 96% is buying our coal and building 4 coal fired plants per month.

I get it. yeah.

So now that Obamacare is an epic fail, were moving on to bigger and better things.

I'm going to file this right after QE1, QE 2, and QE 3.

 

image.jpg

it's a called the white house political aginda scam Andie.one thing for certain there a whole lot of hot air in DC lol

[jcmcgaffey]

Good overview on the Climate Change Report (mostly related to the Northwest).

 

http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/Climate-Change-Report-Projected-effects-on-the-Pacific-Northwest-258168571.html

[Phil]

Politicians who know nothing about physics and atmospheric science should just stay out of it, frankly. Learn how to balance a budget first.

 

As for NOAA, their projections will bust, as usual, because they rely on shotty radiative transfer physics and amplifying boundary-parameterizations to achieve their political result..mis-attributing the observed warming to CO2.

[Andie]

I keep hoping the opposition will begin to quote some real climatologists doing empirically weighed and measured research.

I'm sick of the IPCC, and all of NASAa boobs.

 

My kingdom for a real climatologist on TV news !

It's not like they're hiding, or hideous like Golum with a Univac.

Theyre out there begging to be interviewed.

It's like the climate news bell rings and Pavlov's climatologist salivates ! .......Speak !

 

On another,note.....Melting ice due to climate change is causing the Earth to Expand !

And here I thought my expanding was due to my love for guacamole and frijole chalupas and enchiladas.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2626243/Is-climate-change-making-Earth-EXPAND-Melting-ice-sheets-altering-shape-planet.html

[Andie]

Interesting comparison.

 

[Andie]

Moving on. If things aren't interesting then they are downright laughable and absurd.

Case in point. .......Tic Toc !!! .....then what ?

 

 

500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos

 

 

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:

 

Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.

 

It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days. However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 565 days from now.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html

[Andie]

I'd like to toss a spanner in the works for the moment and ask a question that may divert the conversation but it has been bothering me.

 

I've been reading how brief climate changes in history facilitated the fall of major cultures. The great civilizations of Central America and the fall of the Akhadians in the Middle East, Egypt for example. They collapsed.

 

So with that said, how do some of you all see our current global picture? China and Russia are beginning expansive moves, all directed toward natural resources. China off the coast of Japan and Vietnam for oil. Russia securing the Crimea and Ukraine for oil and its ports and pipelines. China is raping Africa and So. America for resources.

Production of food and availability to fresh water are becoming an issue all over the world.

 

What are the current climate change issues in these areas and forecast for them? I think this is going to establish the balance of power in the future and have a huge impact of our country in this cntury for food, water, natural resources, and national security.

 

Anyone want to dive in ?

[Andie]

Lol, you should work for the UN.

 

One day you'll learn to cut to the chase, but I won't hold my breath.

 

Anyone else want to take a stab at it ?

[Andie]

It isn't a matter of like or not like. It's just that your writing style takes too much time to get to the brief material point.

 

Try 25 words or less and I think that will suffice for all the time I and likely other readers have.

Otherwise, if you can't be brief, I'll move on.

[Andie]

Considering you gift for being obtuse and verbose, I think it best. I'll pass too.

 

 

Anyone else care to address the original post below ?

------------------------------

 

I'd like to toss a spanner in the works for the moment and ask a question that may divert the conversation but it has been bothering me.

 

I've been reading how brief climate changes in history facilitated the fall of major cultures. The great civilizations of Central America and the fall of the Akhadians in the Middle East, Egypt for example. They collapsed.

 

So with that said, how do some of you all see our current global picture? China and Russia are beginning expansive moves, all directed toward natural resources. China off the coast of Japan and Vietnam for oil. Russia securing the Crimea and Ukraine for oil and its ports and pipelines. China is raping Africa and So. America for resources.

Production of food and availability to fresh water are becoming an issue all over the world.

 

What are the current climate change issues in these areas and forecast for them? I think this is going to establish the balance of power in the future and have a huge impact of our country in this cntury for food, water, natural resources, and national security.

[Andie]

Thanks Chris.  See how easy that was ?  lol

I have not been able to agree with the argument that all th is temp increase was inevitable. 

China is pumping a lot of carbon in to the environment and has for centuries.  There are greater forces here on both the warming and cooling trends of the globe over millenia. 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm placing richard mann on ignore, Mods. 

I just don't have time for this stuff.  Thanks. 

[Phil]

NOAA says last month tied for the warmest April on record. http://s26.postimg.org/8pob5bpeh/201404.gif

Looks like another typical anomaly, similar to those since the warming trend ceased around 2001..though we'll remain very warm globally until later this decade.

 

Recall that we're now at solar maximum in TSI, so the radiative forcing is now about .58W/m^2 higher when accounting for emissivity @ the TOA.

 

http://catchmypicture.com/f/BQtyPm/800.jpg

 

Meanwhile the satellite data suggests we have a long way to go to reach the temperatures of 1998:

 

http://catchmypicture.com/f/8UW3aJ/800.jpg

[Phil]

I've been told doubling the CO2 results in a forcing of 3.7 w/m^2. Phil, do you agree with that?

I'll try to explain this without being all "physicsy".

 

Believers talk about the 3.67W/m^2 radiative forcing as if it's some lab-tested fact that must apply to the planetary atmosphere, which is contained within the gravity well. Initially, yes this 3.67W/m^2 forcing does manifest, as measured at the top of-atmosphere (it's less at the surface), and it would remain stagnant (true) in the absence of a gravitational field.

 

However, because we've followed Boltzmann and his idea that electromagnetic+thermal energy and gravity are independent variables, we make the crucial mistake of attributing the thermal gradient (cooling with height) to shifts in the radiative budget/absorption potential, rather than gravity via compressional/collisional line broadening (essentially the act of converting potential energy into vibrational energy as molecules gain/lose spatial freedom).

 

Recent experiments have proven that gravity sets the thermal gradient: http://www.firstgravitymachine.com/descript%20372_dec6.pdf

 

Planet Uranus provides all the evidence we need. The base of the Uranian troposphere is about 320K (compared to Earth's 288K) despite receiving only a tiny fraction of the solar insolation Earth receives...with NO solar radiation reaching the surface...plus Uranus only radiates at a "temperature" of 60K. It's the immense air pressure at the Uranian surface, as a product of the immense gravity.

 

This debate over this phenomenon was never settled in the physics community, so it was just assumed that gravity was not a factor. See here: https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

 

Boltzmann can be refuted very easily. First though, this paper explains the nature of the problem very well: http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc

 

The problem is that we've come to absurd conclusions:

 

1) That much of the planetary atmosphere sits at a temperature colder than the proposed graybody temperature of 255K, which is theorized to be independent of rotational velocity. This is physically impossible in a scenario where thermal potential is achieved at a constant percentage, regardless of air pressure. The coldest temperatures lie at the mesopause, well above the convective zone.

 

2) The moon's temperature, as measured by DIVINER, averages out to 197K..much colder than the theorized 255K. Again, this is correctable if we account for the slower lunar rotation rate, which the IPCC denies is a factor because they'd need to correct for Earth's higher rate of rotation and thermal capacity.

 

http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

 

 

3) The presence of vast oceans. Ever wonder why the boiling temperature of water decreases with altitude? You guessed it, reduced air pressure, hence less restriction on evaporative cooling. Increase air pressure and the water must warm to reach an inter-spatial equilibrium. You have zero diurnal variations in SSTs on Earth due to the vast thermal capacity of these oceans, and the atmosphere restricting their ability to cool. So as the Earth rotates, the oceans will lose very little thermal energy overnight, hence raising the average temperature of the planetary surface.

 

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5419/explanation-for-different-boiling-points-of-water-on-different-altitudes

[Phil]

NOAA says its the 6th warmest Jan-Apr on record.

NCDC = NOAA. So yes, according to the NOAA data, that would be true. However, NCDC is just one of 5 mainstream datasets.

[Phil]

-

Have .. Fun. (!)

 

 

$$$$$ —> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

@ —> http://www.examiner.com/article/video-glenn-beck-and-rush-limbaugh-claim-recent-blizzards-mean-global-warming-is-dead

 

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php?/topic/227-the-other-side-of-the-question/?p=24604

What do Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have to do with this? Are they physicists?

[Phil]

What point are you trying to make here? I'm not catching on.

[richard mann]

-

Have .. Fun. (!)   

 

 

$$$$$ —> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

 @ —> http://www.examiner.com/article/video-glenn-beck-and-rush-limbaugh-claim-recent-blizzards-mean-global-warming-is-dead

 

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php?/topic/227-the-other-side-of-the-question/?p=24604

[Phil]

-

Have .. Fun. (!)

 

 

$$$$$ —> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

@ —> http://www.examiner.com/article/video-glenn-beck-and-rush-limbaugh-claim-recent-blizzards-mean-global-warming-is-dead

 

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php?/topic/227-the-other-side-of-the-question/?p=24604

Please stop deleting then reposting the same response. It's very annoying..

[richard mann]

-
.. hmmn.
 
 
... So is quite a bit of what you have to say on this subject.
 
But I haven't asked you, to stop posting it. 
 
.. And with you're evidently being unable to understand to appreciate just what it's been that I've meant by and with having done so, to this point, let me lay the idea out for you more clearly. 
 
With, the "question" of "Climate Change" (.. "Global Warming", or however otherwise characterized, referred to: -the idea of, whether the, or a potential significant rise in global temperatures in the future's, .. ), being one wrought with much [potential] contention, i.e. either whether or both, where regarding how it may be being brought about or if it is in fact, .. and if it is (put more in short here.), what to do about it, .....
 
.. And with my having initiated this thread with having heard an interesting term on the radio, and having appreciated the value (If naively.) in its use to perhaps describe this idea / potential problem more analytically and academically—essentially, with the hopes in mind, with having heard it initially, that it might perhaps spark a more analytical discussion, one perhaps involving a more renewed focus on the degree of adversity that might be expected with that potential rise in temperatures, more with looking at the "degree" that we "might" be "disrupting" ("disturbing".?) the planet's environment, and so its climate, .... 
 
— {.. If unclear here, and more specifically with my perhaps making my use of the term "renewed" here above more clear, .. What I [myself] had seen in the term "disruption", had been less, yet another coy and clever way of "packaging", or "marketing" the "threat" "presented" by the problem, more defined, but more a more specific definition of / effort to define, the potential problem, as yet not having been accessed to degrees more emphatic, lending better to the idea more that with the, or a, "disruption" of our broader, global, environment, and so certainly potentially, our climate as a whole, ... [that] the more specifically degree to which we might be "disturbing" both, might be looked at with a more renewed sense of responsibility. Even stewardship.}
 
.. And with this thinking of mine, even again naivete', even perhaps also, entice discussion, with introducing this idea as one for discussion, here. 
 
$ .. But, put more simply for you here, "Phil", .... No such "luck".
 
.. And with basically, even where and with my having worked, both, within my initial post to this thread—at this point severely truncated—along together with also, several times within different post of mine to this thread—that I've since deleted—to point to the idea that I hadn't been particularly interested in the "debate" where looked at as such, where considering the potential problem more significant, if it turns out to be one, .... but more with what to do, more whether if, it does, .... or in the light that it otherwise, may or might, ...
 
.. All I got were posts either whether or both, working to "stink" up, others' motivations where considering the theme, problem, potential, and what "might" be done about it, i.e. discount their, intent where having worked to further their, views with regard to it.  This, or either, otherwise, which had leaned much more toward "debate", with certainly the appearance of a renewed "conviction", "unwavering", laced with general abandon where considering the potential for volatility where looking at the broader theme, as opposed to perhaps otherwise the idea, important (?) where considering any more truly academic debate, of accounting for others' appreciation of what might be the case—and if in the case, also what to do about it—more deferentially. ("Deliberatively", had been the term that I'd used above previously, within a few of the posts of mine submitted to this thread. Again, at this point deleted.)
 
$$ .. Hence, with my not having been able to "delete" this thread more fully, .... my having both deleted all of my input to it, and with this, also ...... left sign-posts, in effort to illustrate my general disappointment regarding all of what I've said here above, at its both head, and closing. ...  
 
And guess what "Phil", .. Even with all of this spelled out for you here above, I fully expect, ... that what I've said, here above, will be "Trashed" in one way or another. Even still. 
 
— Even perhaps by yourself.
 
Have a Nice Day. (!)

[Phil]

I don't usually delete a post, then re-paste it just to get the last word in. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding your posts. Not trying to be rude, it's just something I have to mention. Too many adjectives for me to handle.

 

I thought I cited my work fairly thoroughly, but you just don't seem to agree with the science I put forth.

[richard mann]

I don't usually delete a post, then re-paste it ....... in. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding your posts. Not trying to be rude, it's just something I have to mention. Too many adjectives for me to handle.

 

I['d] thought I['d] cited my work fairly thoroughly[. B]ut you just don't seem to agree with the science I['ve] put forth.

 

I see. Good to know. (Thanks for sharing. Too "linear" for you perhaps, hmmn. ?)

 

— Adjectives:  Those such as like, for example, "interesting", "potential", "renewed", "specific", then. ?

 

And personally, I don't regard "seem" as a very "scientific" term. (Perhaps used more acceptably, way before whatever "assumption" ... )