What's new
By:

Global Climate Status Report

babe said:
I don't know if you are a physics professor or a psychology/mass communications/PoliSci professor or what, but I think Log has the same notion somehow that you're teaching physics.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm a physics professor. Certainly not an expert on climate science, though... although I think I understand enough of the science to understand those who are experts. I was at a national physics conference a couple of weeks ago and went to a 30 minute talk that tried to summarize the state of the art in climate models. The guy basically started with the simplest model, then added refinements, describing each new term in the calculations while showing the results getting more and more accurate. I was frankly impressed at how accurate they are getting, although the guy admitted there are still some factors too difficult to take into account. But the models do account for the vast majority of what we see in observations, which is a great indication that people do understand the science pretty well. And there's no doubt about serious human driven climate change.
 
colton said:
Yes, I'm a physics professor. Certainly not an expert on climate science, though... although I think I understand enough of the science to understand those who are experts. I was at a national physics conference a couple of weeks ago and went to a 30 minute talk that tried to summarize the state of the art in climate models. The guy basically started with the simplest model, then added refinements, describing each new term in the calculations while showing the results getting more and more accurate. I was frankly impressed at how accurate they are getting, although the guy admitted there are still some factors too difficult to take into account. But the models do account for the vast majority of what we see in observations, which is a great indication that people do understand the science pretty well. And there's no doubt about serious human driven climate change.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Well said.

Of course after all the best we can do, I'm the contrarian willing to pop up and annoy the authorities.....

remember the song about the impossible dream.
 
Last edited:
So here's where I go to get weather info.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane

This site is now owned by determined AGW folks. Before that, a few years ago, the chief experts running the site were imo objective on the subject. But they sold out. At first the site sorta floundered and sometimes lagged a bit, enough that some of the other site visitors were making comments like.... "If you'd stop pushing the AGW cart, you could keep up with the weather like you used to..."

Note Australia's twin cyclone situation, where in both cases it is stated that ocean temps are about 1 C above normal for this time of year..... and I think that is actual.... and it is huge in hurricane strength.
 
I'm trying to link wu's SST departure map.... a visual look at the world's surface sea temps pointing out warm and cold spots...


https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane

what shows is the current SSTs. To get the anomaly map you need to click on the white map underneath.

I am disappointed that these are not updated frequently enough.... once a year is not my idea of "current".

But note the large warmer area between Hawaii and Mexico, and the areas on either side of Australia.

The blue is colder water..... the site of upwelling deeper water in the Oceans' vertical circulation patterns. The warm is where ocean circulation is drawing from the surface and taking water deeper.... so warmer water at depth too.

I assert that overall, the oceans are now warmer by 1 C than any long-term data could show as "average". This is huge.
 
Last edited:
Oceanic Energy Estimation......

is orders of magnitude more important that Atmospheric Energy Estimates.

It appears to me that today's scientists are working on energy balance models for the Atmosphere..... with inputs from the Sun, from the Earth..... from Man..... and from the Cosmos. And with outputs figured as radiation, like "Black Body Radiation" determined by ambient surface and air temps. All with some kind of estimate of how atmospheric composition affects the net flows. With CO2 being positively a very important factor in moderating those flows, with a net result of keeping our atmosphere warmer, in some kind of linear relation to CO2 content.

It is believed.... accepted.... by the crowd of compliant consensus cronies.... that humans burning astronomical amounts of fossil fuels..... are measurably increasing the atmospheric content of CO2.....hmmmm….. maybe.... but:
 
Nobody is talking about Oceanic CO2 Composition, or the "Outgassing" that occurs as the Oceans get warmer.....

Here is one scientific article, purporting to evaluate the Southern Ocean cycle known as SAM, the Southern Annular Mode..... that reports "anomalous" outgassing and proposes an explanation..... without mentioning any possibility of changing Oceanic Temperatures......

Truly...… Amazing....

Can anyone still wonder why I don't believe our current crop of consensus cronies????
 
Last edited:
So to really get at the issue.....

We need good data on oceanic currents..... flows of water, with measurements of temps and salinity of those flows.

Ice melting around the South Pole is directly connected to the Southern Oceans, but ice melting around the North Pole is not so well connected. We have this 50-mile Bering Strait.... a few channels between Greenland and the North American mainland..... and a relatively small "North Sea" between Norway and Greenland. With many major rivers running north into the Arctic Sea that run high all summer. All that fresh water must lower the salinity of the entire Arctic Ocean, raising the melting temp maybe a degree or two (Freezing Point Depression directly the result of saline concentration). And there must be significant mixing currents.... cold, less saline water flowing into the Atlantic, mostly..... driving other currents like the Gulf Stream....

I don't think we can understand our weather without data enough to understand our Oceans.

So where is the research funding for studying this?????
 
Babe's Best Guesses...….

Let's say the oceans' top 2m (six feet) are a critical layer..... a better slice for evaluating climate than the "surface". A satellite can give us data on the surface temps the world over.... enough satellites with enough IR "eyes". Sure the surface likely corresponds to the 2m layer somewhat. It is mixed by wave action, wind....storms.... hurricanes... as well as currents. It is 72% of Earth's surface......

It has a "heat capacity" of over 1 calorie per milliliter per degree Fahrenheit. Our atmosphere down to sea level "weighs" about 14 lbs per square inch, with a "heat capacity" significantly lower than water......

hey.... here it is Kiddos....



lessee..... atmospheric pressure equals the pressure of about 14 feet depth of water.....

So that top "critical layer" of 6 feet of ocean has about 1/3 the mass of the entire atmosphere...….

and the oceans are, on average.... over 3000 feet deep. So how much heat will it take to change the oceans 1C? If our atmosphere goes up 1C, we could expect the oceans to eventually go up 1C, too, right?????

Well, anyway..... that was an awesome demonstration with the air and water balloons above.

The fact is the heat capacity per gram of water is 75 times that of air. Roughly, that figures to be as much heat in the top twenty inches of the ocean as the entire atmosphere.....
 
Last edited:
So, anyway..... here's my theory once again.....

A huge gigantic Earth "Thermostat" system involving surface icepacks and the oceans, with feedback mechanisms, that cycles us thorugh ice ages and interglacial warm epochs..... that is real, and orders of magnitude more powerful than atmospheric variances in CO2 on the scale of 240-720 ppm concentrations.
 
If we have a cycle in our water that deposits thousands of feet of ice----with half the heat capacity of liquid water and extreme reflectance..... that builds up cyclically during ice ages.... and cools our atmosphere more powerfully than typical CO2 concentrations can warm it...….

which is followed by cooling oceans which evaporate less moisture and reduce snowfall amounts annually below the meltoff amounts annually..... so that icepacks begin to decline..... but only slowly decline enough to alter the ocean temps at depth....

But eventually, after thousands of years of "warm" and the disappearance almost entirely of polar icepacks..... and massive outgassing of CO2 dissolved in those cold waters..... giving us a rapid rising "spike" in global temps..... enough to bring the oceans temps overall up a degree or two....

then we're set to start some snowpack accumulations once again on the poles....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top