- Thread starter
- #381
You need to keep better track of your own posts. You demanded to see mountains of evidence. I was showing you where to find it.
Global warming tipping points
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
ReinyDays
Gold Member
The IPCC reports is ten time bigger than the Holy Bible ... if you looked this up, then you have a link ... but you don't have a link because you never looked it up ...
Fucking liar ... YOU don't understand correlation ... or you'd have stated the IPCC's criteria ... Hell's bells, you're so clueless that you can't even comment on the standard I posted ... "Go look it up yourself" is your lie today ...
- Thread starter
- #383
Allow me to repeat. YOU demanded to see the mountains of evidence I frequently mention. I showed you the mountains of evidence. If you're still looking for a formula for calculating forcing factor, a Google search found this before I finished asking the question:
∆F = 5.35 ∗ In C/CO
Where: ∆F is the radiative forcing (W m-2 )
C is the perturbed concentration of CO2 (ppm)
CO is the original concentration of CO2 (ppm)
Not one of your more exotic calculations.
- Thread starter
- #384
And here, from page 368 of Chapter 6 of the Executive Summary of AR6 we have:
Table 6.2: Simplified expressions for calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons. The first row for CO2 lists an expression with a form similar to IPCC (1990) but with newer values of the constants. The second row for CO2 is a more complete and updated expression similar in form to that of Shi (1992). The third row expression for CO2 is from WMO (1999), based in turn on Hansen et al. (1988).
f(M,N) = 0.47 ln[1+2.01×10−5 (MN)0.75+5.31×10−15 M(MN)1.52]
C is CO2 in ppm
M is CH4 in ppb
N is N2O in ppb
X is CFC in ppb
The constant in the simplified expression for CO2 for the first row is based on radiative transfer calculations with three-dimensional climatological meteorological input data (Myhre et al., 1998b). For the second and third rows, constants are derived with radiative transfer calculations using one-dimensional global average meteorological input data from Shi (1992) and Hansen et al. (1988), respectively. The subscript 0 denotes the unperturbed concentration
Table 6.2: Simplified expressions for calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons. The first row for CO2 lists an expression with a form similar to IPCC (1990) but with newer values of the constants. The second row for CO2 is a more complete and updated expression similar in form to that of Shi (1992). The third row expression for CO2 is from WMO (1999), based in turn on Hansen et al. (1988).
f(M,N) = 0.47 ln[1+2.01×10−5 (MN)0.75+5.31×10−15 M(MN)1.52]
C is CO2 in ppm
M is CH4 in ppb
N is N2O in ppb
X is CFC in ppb
The constant in the simplified expression for CO2 for the first row is based on radiative transfer calculations with three-dimensional climatological meteorological input data (Myhre et al., 1998b). For the second and third rows, constants are derived with radiative transfer calculations using one-dimensional global average meteorological input data from Shi (1992) and Hansen et al. (1988), respectively. The subscript 0 denotes the unperturbed concentration
Last edited:
Oh no, more weather to "GRIP" the UK -
Damn you, you experts, grrr
Damn you, you experts, grrr
Shit! Moved from "grip" to "LETHAL" -
Yikes !!
Yikes !!
- Thread starter
- #387
Lethal did not replace grip. The former is an adjective, the latter is a verb.
- Thread starter
- #388
Hmm... Reiny never got back to me on this. Did this make you happy? (Get it? Happy Days? Get it?)
Ringo
Gold Member
Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency a "Dangerous Corruption of Science" - The New American
Dr. John F. Clauser understands that climate-emergency dogma "threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people." ...
thenewamerican.com
Mikeoxenormous
Diamond Member
And down here in Florida in July, we are 10 degrees below average. Maybe it is because God favors Red States and blue states deserve HELL? Yeah, that must be it...
- Thread starter
- #391
The whole state was just swept with a cold front and buckets of rain. Three hours ago it was 94.
Mikeoxenormous
Diamond Member
Last year it was almost 100 degrees. If the Earth is warming up year after year, how can the temperature of areas be cooler than last year? Hey maybe you will be one of the lucky ones that VP Harris will have depopulated, so she and her children will live in a cleaner world...
- Thread starter
- #393
Even the global average doesn't ALWAYS go up. It just goes up more often than it goes down. The world is still filled with all manner of variation. We still have a hot equator, cold poles and lots of weather and that's not going to change from the global average moving 2 or 3 degrees.
Mikeoxenormous
Diamond Member
And what is the globull average for the temperature of the Earth. That question always comes up, but a definite degree never comes forth. Tell me on March 21st what should the global average temperature be?
I want to remind you of that event where globull warming scientists went down to Antarctica and got stuck in ice which happened in December of 2015. How do you explain all that ice?
'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting
The leader of a scientific expedition whose ship remains stranded in Antarctica bristled at the suggestion that there was irony in setting out to study climate change and becoming trapped in ice.
www.foxnews.com
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #395
Climate.gov had the following: The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).
So, the average temperature of the planet in 2022 was 14.76C (58.55F). If you really dig, you can probably find a value for the planet good for the last day or so, but it takes time to gather all that data and do the number crunching. And seasonal cycles will bias the result unless you have 365 days of data.
Just found this: June's 61.79 degrees (16.55 degrees Celsius) global average was 1.89 degrees (1.05 degrees Celsius) above the 20th Century average, the first time globally a summer month was more than a degree Celsius hotter than normal, according to NOAA. -- Meteorologists: Earth sizzled to global heat record in June – and July is getting hotter.
And as I just said, there are seasonal biases. June is early summer in the northern hemisphere, which has most of the land. The 2023 annual average will probably be a little lower than that June reading (unless things really go south)
I think that's happened more than once and at both poles. But it doesn't take a continent's worth of ice to trap a single ship, just an unexpected change in wind direction. Those events are meaningless in this context. The satellite imagery data give accurate values for ice extents and it is indeed melting. That doesn't mean its all gone. The latest sea ice extent minimum for Antarctica was 1.79 million square kilometers; more than enough to get stuck in. But in 1980 when satellite data begin, the minimum was just under 7 million square kilometers. So a lot of ice has melted there.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,333
- 34,496
- 2,180
It is amazing how demofks don’t understand weather
- Thread starter
- #397
You think Captain Caveman is a "demofks"?
Mikeoxenormous
Diamond Member
You do realize that while the ship was traveling to Antarctica in December, that is the summer solstice for that area of the world. So it should of been the warmest on record since globull warming is heating up the Earth year after year, yet it was colder than they could consensus and they got caught in a major ice flow, then the rescue ship got caught also. Idiots like you are so willing to give up their money, to some Marxist elites thinking they are going to save your ass, while only making those elites much richer and they are buying up properties right on the beaches, thus rubbing your faces with your stupidity.
- Thread starter
- #399
Yes, I am aware of that. As I noted, at its current summer minimum, there was still 1.79 million square kilometers of sea ice there. And this event took place in December of 2013, almost 10 years ago and at a time when Antarctic sea ice extents were growing. However, as I also noted, they were not trapped by ice freezing around them, they were trapped by ice driven into their path by unexpected winds. From Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change
"In fact, the local weather patterns that brought about the rapid build up of ice that trapped the Academik Shokalskiy tell us very little about global warming. This is weather, not climate."
It is not guaranteed that it would be the warmest on record. It was still well below freezing and, as I have now noted twice, there was far more than enough ice to trap a ship there. There still is.
This conversation has not demonstrated any shortcomings in my knowledge or reasoning (though they certainly exist). You, on the other hand, have expressed a number of ignorant, ill-considered and unsupportable ideas about ships, ice, climate, weather and my political predilections.
I am not a Marxist and I do not make a habit of donating to them. Global warming will not be solved by donations to charities and I have not done so. Your charge that Marxism is somehow responsible for global warming or the hoax you believe it to be is completely unsupportable, paranoid nonsense. Global warming has been identified and studied by scientists from all over the planet with political inclinations along every single point on the compass.
My ass will not be here long enough to see the worst. I am concerned about my children, my grandchildren and all of our descendants for the next ten generations or so. Even yours.
How about naming some of these Marxist elites to whom you believe I am giving money and making rich? While we're at it, how much have you donated to Trump and his ilk? I consider them a far graver threat to the continuing existence of this very nation than any Marxist I know of.
The stupidity is the view that those purchases mean a damned thing. You are impressively stupid. I know worse around here, but its close.
Fear level, not grammar level.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Consequences Arrive for Canadian Voters, and They Deserve Every Bit of It
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 7
-
