Gulf Stream current at its weakest in 1,600 years, studies show

Does that have nubile young "ladies" in it?

I haven't bothered to watch that film, since I don't need the "pre-digested" science - I am capable of understanding the actual science behind it.

Reply to
Tom Gardner
Loading thread data ...

te is experiencing an unprecedented slowdown and may be less stable than th ought - with potentially severe consequences

They are engaging fantasies, and sold as such.

Your predilection for self-serving optimistic fantasies serve up to you by the denialism propaganda machine reflects gullible idleness rather than any particular taste in entertainment.

The big money is made is in disaster fantasies, not disaster predictions

"The Day After Tomorrow" grossed $544 million, world-wide.

"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million.

The people who publish scientific papers in the peer-reviewed journals aren 't primarily interested in making a fortune. They do want to entertain thei r peers, but predicting things that aren't going to happen entertains the a udience in quite the wrong way, and stops you getting invited back for repe at gigs.

Writing scripts for end-of-the-world movies is a different kind of business .

Somebody who is scared silly of designing his own inductors and transformer s for his specific applications can't be much of an engineer then.

The fact that he believes every last bit of nonsense posted on denialist we b-sites would suggest that he can't read a datasheet with a properly critic al eye either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Well, as soon as he became a superstar he dumped Tipper and acquired condos in various cities.

That may make you the only person on the planet who understands the climate and its models.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

limate is experiencing an unprecedented slowdown and may be less stable tha n thought - with potentially severe consequences

r

e.

ps

There's a big gap between understanding the science on which the case for a nthropogenic global warming is based, and understanding all the climate mod els around.

formatting link

3ASOTMJO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

talks about simulating the Madden?Julian oscillation in the tropics .

formatting link

This a 60 to 90 days phenomenon, which John Larkin knows to be unpredictabl e because it to take place over a longer period than regular weather can be predicted.

It takes the kind of computer that UK Meteorology Office uses to run the ki nd of model that can do that well.

John Larkin's problem is that he is too ignorant to appreciate just how ign orant he is.

formatting link

provides a possible starting point for people who - unlike him - want to le arn more, rather than have their preconceptions confirmed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

If northern hemisphere hurricanes are a result of the temperature difference between the north pole and the equator then as the north pole water is warming should there not a be a decline in hurricanes? Which has been seen. Much the same as tornadoes, warming climate means less temperature differential and thus less and/or weaker storms.

Not what the climate alarmists want to publicize though.

If people insist on building on flood plains (idiots are doing that in my city right now) then obviously the financial damage will be greater from the fewer storms, but that correlation does not mean there are more and stronger storms.

Climates ALWAYS change, just ask the Mayans. Their sacrifices didn't help, just like our modern sacrifices probably won't help either.

John :-#)#

Reply to
John Robertson

Or 50 years ago.

They are more like polynomial curve fits with coefficients tweaked to track past temperature trends. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't be published.

In a noisy chaotic process, curve fits are not usefully predictive.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

So, whatever happens, it's Global Warming! Nice science!

No, because it doesn't sell fear.

Right down to the Paris accords. Such things do raise a lot of money, though. On the flip side, they kill a lot in the third world but who cares about them, right?

Reply to
krw

Maybe the trigger is circulating winds, and maybe they're getting weaker, but hurricanes are steam powered (water vapor is lighter than air and rises, intemsifying the depression - low pressure promotes winds and evaporation), so the warmer the ocean surface the bigger and stronger the depressions will get. this doesn't seem desirable.

Tornadoes mostly come out of wind shear between stratospheric wind currents.

-- ?

Reply to
Jasen Betts

e:

:

ess

t to

oesn't

other

well

are

t up

eat is

use

cold

n the

ers

guess

rrent

water

ed

ore

us down to fifty metres - over a big enough area of ocean that's more than

3 degrees (angle) away from the equator - and there's enough wind to get th e feedback loop going.

ailable down the hurricane path, so the intensity is erratic, and you get m ore in some years than others.

y work means that this translates into roughly the same number of hurricane s with the usual Guassian distribution of ferocity, but with the mean feroc ity a bit higher, and a correspondingly bigger standard deviation on feroci ty.

Entirely wrong. Hurricanes are a local instability in the atmosphere over s ea water that is above about 26.3 degrees Celcius. This is hot enough to e vaporate a enough water into the air passing over it to drive a heat engine , where the wet air rises and cools, condensing out the water and releasing heat that drives the circulation that drops the cooler, drier air back to the surface to pick up more water.

formatting link

The sea water has to be more than 3 degrees (angle) away from the equator f or Coriolis forces to impose a consistent direction on the circulation arou nd the eye of the hurricane. Equator to pole temperature gradients don't co me into it.

The climate "alarmists" know what they are talking about, which you clearly don't.

What matters is that larger area of warmer ocean (above 26.3 Celcius) provi des more energy to feed hurricanes. It seems to be that the extra energy wi ll feed roughly the same number of hurricanes per year, shifting the distri bution towards more energetic hurricanes, rather than a larger number of hu rricanes with the kinds of ferocity that we are used to.

Climate has - so far - stayed pretty stable within interglacials (atmospher ic CO2 level about 270 ppm), and equally stable, if with different temperat ures, within ice ages (atmospheric CO2 level about 180 ppm). Our trick of p ushing up atmospheric CO2 levels to 410 ppm and rising means that all bets are off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

formatting link
/ice_core_dating/

John Larkin doesn't know about deducing historical temperatures from isotop e ratios in layers of ice from ice care samples. We've got ice cores going back about 800,000 years.

This has been mentioned before. Jeroen Bellman didn't like the link I found last time - to the Scientific American - so I've found a new one.

John Larkin only believes stuff he gets spoon-fed by denialist web-sites, s o he won't process this information at all - he needs a spoonful of flatter y for the medicine to go down, and hasn't noticed that you only get that fr om people trying to rip you off.

They aren't remotely like polynomial curve fits. Climate models break the a tmosphere into chunks, and follow how those chunks interact.

It's finite element modelling - the elements are bit too big to capture eve rything that's going on at the moment.

Whoever said they were? Seeing what's going on now in more detail is a bett er route.

formatting link

-earth-in-for

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Huh? Whatever gave you that idea? A typhoon or hurricane is a storm that grows vertically enough to cause a vortex by coriolis effect, and keeps growing under solar power as long as it's over warmish ocean water. It's a huge solar energy collector that turns sunlight into wind.

Reply to
whit3rd

Nonsense. Gas thermometers (awkward, but accurate) of 50+ years ago are how platinum RTDs are calibrated. The Celsius scale, as of 1954, was redefined as zero at 273.16 Kelvin; that's how accurate thermometry was then.

Reply to
whit3rd

But they do have to sell it as creative fiction.

The big money is made is in disaster fantasies, not disaster predictions

"The Day After Tomorrow" grossed $544 million, world-wide.

"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million.

John Larkin does seem to confuse the two genres.

Another money making branch of creative fiction is producing the denialist propaganda that he laps up.

It's less obviously fictitious than "The Day After Tomorrow", since it is intended to deceive, rather than entertain, but may have had money spent on it.

formatting link

suggests that some $900 million per year is spent on spreading doubt about anthropogenic global warming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

e:

:

ess

t to

oesn't

other

well

are

t up

eat is

use

cold

n the

ers

guess

rrent

water

ed

ore

us down to fifty metres - over a big enough area of ocean that's more than

3 degrees (angle) away from the equator - and there's enough wind to get th e feedback loop going.

ailable down the hurricane path, so the intensity is erratic, and you get m ore in some years than others.

y work means that this translates into roughly the same number of hurricane s with the usual Guassian distribution of ferocity, but with the mean feroc ity a bit higher, and a correspondingly bigger standard deviation on feroci ty.

That's a pretty big hurricane that spans from the polar region to the equat or! I don't recall anyone saying hurricanes being a product of the differe nce in temperature between the poles and the equator. Hurricanes are spawn ed from the difference in temperature between the water and the upper atmos phere. The water warms the lower atmosphere and adds moisture. The warmer air wants to rise above while the cooler air sinks and in the process form s the eddy just like the one in your bathtub when it drains. Higher temper ature deltas between these two create more velocity and spawns larger storm s. That's the ten cent version. Who said the poles vs. equator had anythi ng to do with it?

Mostly because it is wrong.

You can get away with building in flood plains if you do it properly. Many don't do it properly.

No one is doubting that the climate is changing. The issue is whether it i s caused by humans and if it is too late to do anything about it or not.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

The problem is siting, and changes in the boxes that the thermometers are inside of. Probably the balloon data is the most consistent.

There's a web site that collects pictures of really badly sited weather stations. The official San Francisco station has been moved about 6 times since the 1800's, generally east, more downtown, where it's warmer. Downtown is sometimes 10F higher than at my house, 20F higher than at the beach.

Lots of official stations are at airports now.

This one is always the regional outlier, both hot and cold.

formatting link

It didn't exist 50 years ago.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

I grew up in New Orleans, which has a climate (and bug population) if anything worse than Houston. A little more taxes are fine with me.

Texas and Texans are fine by me, it's just not my taste. But I do wish that California had more good barbeque. And it's almost impossible to find a fried oyster sandwich or edible gumbo.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

These and many other problems have known solutions. There are also ways to measure how much difference (for instance) the paint on Stevenson boxes makes. It isn't much, and it's a mystery to no one.

When a 'badly sited' station looks bad in a posed photo, and when it mismatches dozens of other weather indicators, it might mean that the statistical weighting of that station has been lowered: real averages are not just made by automata on a one-station-one-vote principle. Aaccept the error bars, or learn to calculate 'em.

Reply to
whit3rd

Try reading the odd research paper instead of just quoting wikipedia - which may have its own bias - water temperature is only part of the equation:

formatting link

John

Reply to
John Robertson

This is Anthony Watts's King Charles head. He's obsessed about it, and the denialist propaganda machine co-opted him years ago.

formatting link

And have been since air-travel started to get popular. Pilots have always b een very interested in weather forecasts, and the industry has always been very to cooperate to make them better.

=1

John Larkin hasn't got the message about temperature proxies - ice cores of fer some 800,000 years of average temperature data (encode in the isotope r atios in particular layers of ice), but it's all much too complicated for John, and Anthony Watts isn't interested (and probably wouldn't understand the under-lying physics if somebody did draw it to his attention).

formatting link
/ice_core_dating/

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Actually, gas thermometers are just one way of measuring temperature.

If you look at the thermodynamic fundamentals, temperature determines how m olecules distribute themselves between the quantised energy levels they can access.

Measuring the pressure exerted by a known mass of gas in a known volume ess entially measures how the molecules spread out their translational energy.

The monatomic noble gases have a low heat capacity - 3/2 R at constant volu me

"the molar heat capacity at constant pressure (Cp) is 5/2 R = 20.8 J? ??K?1?mol?1 (4.97 cal?K?1? ?mol?1)" "the molar heat capacity at constant volume (Cv) is 3/2 R = 12.5 J? ?K?1?mol?1 (2.98 cal?K?1? mol?1)"

Diatomic gases have a higher heat capacity - 5/2 R at constant volume - bec ause some of the heat put in goes into rotational degrees of freedom.

With asymmetrical molecules you can see this in the infrared absorbtion spe ctrum - the P,Q and R branches in the vibrational absorbtion spectum.

It you want to measure temperature of specific chunks of gas you can do it spectroscopically. It mostly happens in arcs and plasmas where the heating is pretty localised, and the researchers aren't looking for much precision, but no doubt some national standard lab somewhere is measuring temperature this way with absurd precision.

You don't get enough of the higher vibrational energy levels populated near room temperature for them to make much difference to the heat capacity, bu t the rotational energy levels are thermalised.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.