London has Warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as Enormous Heat Dome Consumes Europe

Like I said, it's clear you don't know how ocean currents work.

Pitiful.
And it's clear YOU don't know how plate tectonics work.

In a nutshell (or layperson's language which you might understand), the bulk of divergent zones are under the oceans. This is where the asthenosphere brings it's warmth/heat to the surface of the lithosphere adding heat/warmth to the oceans depths. Most underwater volcanoes are also located at or near the divergent zones.

Some illustrations for the general reader public here;
1280px-Subduction-en.svg.png

...
The asthenosphere (Ancient Greek: ἀσθενός [asthenos] meaning "without strength" and σφαίρα [sphaira] meaning "sphere") is the mechanically weak[1] and ductile region of the upper mantle of Earth. It lies below the lithosphere, between approximately 80 and 200 km (50 and 120 miles) below the surface, and extends as deep as 700 km (430 mi). However, the lower boundary of the asthenosphere is not well defined.

The asthenosphere is almost solid, but a slight amount of melting (less than 0.1% of the rock) contributes to its mechanical weakness. More extensive decompression melting of the asthenosphere takes place where it wells upwards, and this is the most important source of magma on Earth. It is the source of mid-ocean ridge basalt (MORB) and of some magmas that erupted above subduction zones or in regions of continental rifting.
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Divergent Zone
1280px-Continental-continental_constructive_plate_boundary.svg.png

...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1280px-Plates_tect2_en.svg.png

The tectonic plates of the lithosphere on Earth
...
A lithosphere (Ancient Greek: λίθος [líthos] for "rocky", and σφαίρα [sphaíra] for "sphere") is the rigid,[1] outermost shell of a terrestrial-type planet or natural satellite. On Earth, it is composed of the crust and the portion of the upper mantle that behaves elastically on time scales of up to thousands of years or more. The crust and upper mantle are distinguished on the basis of chemistry and mineralogy.
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin: tectonicus, from the Ancient Greek: τεκτονικός, lit. 'pertaining to building')[1] is the generally accepted scientific theory that considers the Earth's lithosphere to comprise a number of large tectonic plates which have been slowly moving since about 3.4 billion years ago.[2] The model builds on the concept of continental drift, an idea developed during the first decades of the 20th century. Plate tectonics came to be generally accepted by geoscientists after seafloor spreading was validated in the mid to late 1960s.

Earth's lithosphere, which is the rigid outermost shell of a planet (the crust and upper mantle), is broken into seven or eight major plates (depending on how they are defined) and many minor plates. Where the plates meet, their relative motion determines the type of boundary: convergent, divergent, or transform. Earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trench formation occur along these plate boundaries (or faults). The relative movement of the plates typically ranges from zero to 10 cm annually.[3]

Tectonic plates are composed of the oceanic lithosphere and the thicker continental lithosphere, each topped by its own kind of crust. Along convergent boundaries, the process of subduction, or one plate moving under another, carries the edge of the lower one down into the mantle; the area of material lost is roughly balanced by the formation of new (oceanic) crust along divergent margins by seafloor spreading. In this way, the total geoid surface area of the lithosphere remains constant. This prediction of plate tectonics is also referred to as the conveyor belt principle. Earlier theories, since disproven, proposed gradual shrinking (contraction) or gradual expansion of the globe.[4]

Tectonic plates are able to move because Earth's lithosphere has greater mechanical strength than the underlying asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection; that is, the slow creeping motion of Earth's solid mantle. Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from spreading ridges due to variations in topography (the ridge is a topographic high) and density changes in the crust (density increases as newly-formed crust cools and moves away from the ridge). At subduction zones the relatively cold, dense oceanic crust is "pulled" or sinks down into the mantle over the downward convecting limb of a mantle cell.[5] The relative importance of each of these factors and their relationship to each other is unclear, and still the subject of much debate.
...
 
Excuse me for taking an Illegitimate tactic from the 70 IQ Climate Deniers, who confuse short term or local WEATHER with Climate/Global avg Climate/warming.
Many threads on this page alone are by those myopic clowns and their snowy days looking out their windows.
So I think it will be enlightening to have them see past their own backyard Weather, and to a very large area.
But still just Weather.

London has warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as enormous heat dome consumes Europe
London has warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as enormous heat dome consumes Europe
Washington Post - Jason Samenow - April 19

While abnormally cold weather continues to grip the Eastern United States, a full-fledged dose of summer weather has overtaken much of Europe.​
An enormous heat dome, parked over Germany, has covered a large part of the continent in record or near-record warmth. High temperatures in the 70s and 80s (roughly 20 to 30 Celsius) were widespread Thursday.​
The British Met Office tweeted that St. James’s Park in London soared to 84.4° (29.1 Celsius), its warmest temperature in April since 1949, when it hit 84.9° (29.4 Celsius).​
Paris also experienced historically warm April conditions. Its temperature surpassed 82° before April 20 for the first time since 1949, MeteoFrance reported. ....Paris’s preliminary high of 83.7° (28.7 Celsius) ranked as the fifth-highest April temperature there in 146 years of measurements.​
Several locations in France set all-time April highs, MeteoFrance tweeted.​
[......]​
`
It has been 5 years since this post, are they are still alive over there?
 
HAHAHA

Poser.

Let me know when you've completed your first oceanic research cruise. I'll wait. (*Hint: sometimes they need galley workers who can fix food... maybe that's your way into the sciences)
You are the "poser" here. We have only your word on credentials and background, and that is a bit shaky.

iu
 
And it's clear YOU don't know how plate tectonics work.

I do. Probably a whole hell of a lot more than you do. (ie I didn't have to rely on Wiki to get my info.)

In a nutshell (or layperson's language which you might understand), the bulk of divergent zones are under the oceans. This is where the asthenosphere brings it's warmth/heat to the surface of the lithosphere adding heat/warmth to the oceans depths. Most underwater volcanoes are also located at or near the divergent zones.

Tectonic plates are able to move because Earth's lithosphere has greater mechanical strength than the underlying asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection; that is, the slow creeping motion of Earth's solid mantle. Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from spreading ridges due to variations in topography (the ridge is a topographic high) and density changes in the crust (density increases as newly-formed crust cools and moves away from the ridge). At subduction zones the relatively cold, dense oceanic crust is "pulled" or sinks down into the mantle over the downward convecting limb of a mantle cell.[5] The relative importance of each of these factors and their relationship to each other is unclear, and still the subject of much debate.
...

Nice cut 'n' paste there, junior.

Now let's talk about why it all matters:

1. The plates move around causing continental landmasses to be in various configurations which causes the ocean currents (responsible for re-distributing heat) to change. This can lead to changes in the climate.

2. Heat from the Aesthenosphere is NOT significantly responsible for the surface temperature of the earth related to our climate. Otherwise you'd have a tough time walking on the surface of the earth. YES there is heat from the solid earth (left over accretionary heat from the formation of the earth as well as radioactive decay of elements within the rock). And yes it is real and important, but not necessarily a factor in the AGW discussion per se.

3. Even the volcanoes don't put out as much CO2 as humanity does each year.

If you would actually LIKE TO TALK GEOLOGY I am more than willing to do so. IF you think you can keep up.

Cutting and pasting wikipedia articles isn't sufficient in this conversation.
 
You are the "poser" here. We have only your word on credentials and background, and that is a bit shaky.

iu

That's because you can't read. I've written EXTENSIVELY on this forum about geologic topics. Usually in my own words. Because I know this stuff.

But you can't read so you didn't notice the posts.

Maybe I don't use enough cartoons for you lot?
 
That's because you can't read. I've written EXTENSIVELY on this forum about geologic topics. Usually in my own words. Because I know this stuff.

But you can't read so you didn't notice the posts.

Maybe I don't use enough cartoons for you lot?
What little I've seen of your postings has not been informative nor persuasive enough to entice me to waste time and energy chasing down any of your past posts. Yes, I have not read such since I'm not convinced they would have merit.

BTW, do notice a high dose of hubris on your part, combined with a fanatical "gorebot" endorsement of ACC/AGW which suggests the cartoon fits you to a "T", IMO.
 
Last edited:
What little I've seen of your postings has not been informative nor persuasive enough to entice me to waste time and energy chasing down any of you past posts. Yes, I have not read such since I'm not convinced they would have merit.

You have a poor sample you selected from. Or you didn't understand what I was talking about given your lack of knowledge of the topic in any technical detail.

 
HAHAHA

Poser.

Let me know when you've completed your first oceanic research cruise. I'll wait. (*Hint: sometimes they need galley workers who can fix food... maybe that's your way into the sciences)




Hmmmm, let's see. My first one was waaaaaay back in the 1960's when we were doing work on the Gorda Rise.

Next.
 
That's because you can't read. I've written EXTENSIVELY on this forum about geologic topics. Usually in my own words. Because I know this stuff.

But you can't read so you didn't notice the posts.

Maybe I don't use enough cartoons for you lot?




I have yet to see anything substantial from you on the subject. Just the usual cut and paste drivel that you asshats are known for.
 
I do. Probably a whole hell of a lot more than you do. (ie I didn't have to rely on Wiki to get my info.)



Nice cut 'n' paste there, junior.

Now let's talk about why it all matters:

1. The plates move around causing continental landmasses to be in various configurations which causes the ocean currents (responsible for re-distributing heat) to change. This can lead to changes in the climate.

2. Heat from the Aesthenosphere is NOT significantly responsible for the surface temperature of the earth related to our climate. Otherwise you'd have a tough time walking on the surface of the earth. YES there is heat from the solid earth (left over accretionary heat from the formation of the earth as well as radioactive decay of elements within the rock). And yes it is real and important, but not necessarily a factor in the AGW discussion per se.

3. Even the volcanoes don't put out as much CO2 as humanity does each year.

If you would actually LIKE TO TALK GEOLOGY I am more than willing to do so. IF you think you can keep up.

Cutting and pasting wikipedia articles isn't sufficient in this conversation.
This conversation isn't just "you" and me. Others are posting and reading here and the information and sources I provide are for their use and benefit, should they choose. The links and illustrations from Wiki are also to provide details and data that does not have the bias and overlay of personal opinion (such as we'd likely see in your posts.)

I'm not claiming heat from the divergent boundaries/zones produce heat on Earth's dry land surface. Only that they are a main factor in the ocean's heat ~ along with that absorbed from the Sun.

The are two(or more) ways to look at the CO2 factor in Earth's climate.

If we look at the total of CO2, it's a ratio of 400/ppm; or 400/1,000,000; or 4/10,000; or 1/2,500.
I don't recall anything in the chemistry and physics I learned decades ago that would let one molecule retain say 2 degrees F and then transfer that amount equally to the 2,499 other parts of the atmosphere.

However, it seems that when CO2 was at 280ppm (round it to 300) you gorebots have no issue and think we should get back to that level. Now that it's at the level of 400 ppm, or so, an increase of about 100 ppm, suddenly all chaos is afoot and per your hero, the great scientist Al Gore, "Earth has a fever" and "We" need to do something to reduce it.

So we are really looking at one part placing equal energy/heat to the 10,000 other parts of the atmosphere, making them just as "warm" as it is. !!! ???

Sorry, but neither math nor logic can support this absurd bit of fringe science.
However politics and a socialist, anti-Western culture agenda is trying to con the World in to buying this fairy tale.

BTW, Climate isn't like your thermostat in home/office controling heat/temp that can be set to one small range and be expected to stay there. Climate is always changing, either to cooler (Ice Ages) or warmer. Climate is always in flux and short term weather it produces isn't always an accurate gauge of the long term trends.
 
You have a poor sample you selected from. Or you didn't understand what I was talking about given your lack of knowledge of the topic in any technical detail.
They are your posts and I've only recently crossed your path, become aware of your existence here.
As I said, so far nothing I've seen impresses me in regards to either your knowledge base, credentials, ability to present clearly, or objectivity. Throw in absence of science and technical detail as well.

So far, you are largely a waste of time.
 
If we look at the total of CO2, it's a ratio of 400/ppm; or 400/1,000,000; or 4/10,000; or 1/2,500.
I don't recall anything in the chemistry and physics I learned decades ago that would let one molecule retain say 2 degrees F and then transfer that amount equally to the 2,499 other parts of the atmosphere.

That doesn't sound like it relates to the conversation of AGW.

But hopefully in your chemistry classes you DID learn that CO2 absorbs IR photons. And presumably you also learned that energy doesn't just "disappear". We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know how it works. We even know how excess CO2 re-equilibrates back out of the atmosphere.

All of that points to it being a significant factor (not the only one) in AGW.

Sorry, but neither math nor logic can support this absurd bit of fringe science.

Your oversimplification and flawed math notwithstanding. Those back-of-the-envelope calcs don't hold any water in this system.

BTW, Climate isn't like your thermostat in home/office controling heat/temp that can be set to one small range and be expected to stay there. Climate is always changing, either to cooler (Ice Ages) or warmer. Climate is always in flux and short term weather it produces isn't always an accurate gauge of the long term trends.

The only reason you know about the earth's changing climate in its distant past is because of the same work and same scientists who tell you that the current warming CANNOT be explained solely by natural forcings.
 
That doesn't sound like it relates to the conversation of AGW.

But hopefully in your chemistry classes you DID learn that CO2 absorbs IR photons. And presumably you also learned that energy doesn't just "disappear". We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know how it works. We even know how excess CO2 re-equilibrates back out of the atmosphere.

All of that points to it being a significant factor (not the only one) in AGW.



Your oversimplification and flawed math notwithstanding. Those back-of-the-envelope calcs don't hold any water in this system.



The only reason you know about the earth's changing climate in its distant past is because of the same work and same scientists who tell you that the current warming CANNOT be explained solely by natural forcings.
It relates to AGW and ACC when it's the additional 100+ ppm since 1880 that is supposedly all due to human activity and the MAIN driver of ACC=AGW which needs to be dealt with.

My "back of the envelope math" is what most people can understand and relate to. It also makes clear the phony and fringe science being paid for by our governments and peddled by the "scientists" accepting the funding.

If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd realize the math and numbers could be the basis for an "in the laboratory" experiment that would "prove", or not, the ACC/AGW hypothesis.

BTW, CO2 re-emits, or looses that absorbed IR in a rather short span of time.
...
EXCERPT:

Absorption and re-emission process
When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it changes to a vibrational mode for the three atoms making up the molecule. This mode depends on the energy of the photon absorbed which must be in one of a limited number of energy levels due to there being a limited number of geometrical vibrational modes available.

On return of an energised molecule to its ground state, it may emit a photon of the original absorbed wavelength (energy) in an arbitrary direction. Otherwise the energised molecule may collide with another atmospheric molecule causing it to emit radiation at a longer wavelength, lesser energy, than that absorbed with the balance of the energy becoming kinetic energy of motion of the pair of colliding molecules or no radiation, merely a transfer of state to kinetic energy.

In every case the total energy involved does not change. There is no additional energy created by the action so there is no heating generated by the CO2 molecule. Any change of kinetic energy becomes part of the normal convective process of cooling the Earth’s surface.

The laws of thermodynamics mandate that heat cannot flow from cold to hot so the return of some radiation back towards the Earth cannot cause surface heating as it is only a fraction of the energy being emitted from the surface. It is not heat from a hotter source so there is no surface heating as proposed by the Greenhouse Effect.
...
 
6956311_f520.jpg




Image-of-Composition-of-Atmosphere.png



I stand corrected on the H2O, it may only be 2% depending how one measures;

res525-origin-of-earth-and-earth-atmosphere-8-638.jpg


...
The atmosphere of Earth, commonly known as air, is the layer of gases retained by Earth's gravity that surrounds the planet and forms its planetary atmosphere. The atmosphere of Earth protects life on Earth by creating pressure allowing for liquid water to exist on the Earth's surface, absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night (the diurnal temperature variation).

By mole fraction (i.e., by number of molecules), dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere. Air composition, temperature, and atmospheric pressure vary with altitude. Within the atmosphere, air suitable for use in photosynthesis by terrestrial plants and breathing of terrestrial animals is found only in Earth's troposphere.
...



en.wikipedia.org



Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia




en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
 
Excuse me for taking an Illegitimate tactic from the 70 IQ Climate Deniers, who confuse short term or local WEATHER with Climate/Global avg Climate/warming.
Many threads on this page alone are by those myopic clowns and their snowy days looking out their windows.
So I think it will be enlightening to have them see past their own backyard Weather, and to a very large area.
But still just Weather.

London has warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as enormous heat dome consumes Europe
London has warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as enormous heat dome consumes Europe
Washington Post - Jason Samenow - April 19

While abnormally cold weather continues to grip the Eastern United States, a full-fledged dose of summer weather has overtaken much of Europe.​
An enormous heat dome, parked over Germany, has covered a large part of the continent in record or near-record warmth. High temperatures in the 70s and 80s (roughly 20 to 30 Celsius) were widespread Thursday.​
The British Met Office tweeted that St. James’s Park in London soared to 84.4° (29.1 Celsius), its warmest temperature in April since 1949, when it hit 84.9° (29.4 Celsius).​
Paris also experienced historically warm April conditions. Its temperature surpassed 82° before April 20 for the first time since 1949, MeteoFrance reported. ....Paris’s preliminary high of 83.7° (28.7 Celsius) ranked as the fifth-highest April temperature there in 146 years of measurements.​
Several locations in France set all-time April highs, MeteoFrance tweeted.​
[......]​
`
Tommy letting out more hot air than usual? This too shall pass.
 
Scientific method usually depends upon replication under controlled conditions such as in the laboratory.

One method would involve use of an insulated and airtight container into which is placed a replication of the Earth's atmosphere, proper percentages of Nitrogen, Oxygen, argon, etc. minus the CO2 and heated to say 70 degrees F. Then introduce the 1/2500 ratio of CO2 at say 75 degrees F. and record how much it increases the temperature of the other contents in the airtight vessel.

To best of my knowledge, no one has done such a lab experiment and if so have not shown a measurable and significant increase of total temps, especially on the scale and comparable to the claims of the ACC/AGW fanatics.
 
Galileo had to deal with "majority consensus" when he proposed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the Sun revolving around the Earth which was the "majority consensus" of that time.

Politics is based on consensus, science is based upon data and facts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top