2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

[NLXSK1]

Thanks for providing the reference material. There is a lot of material out there and its best if we can at least begin this with one data set. Ok, so from your viewpoint, what does this all mean regarding global climate change?

Well, first I think you may agree that the earth does not have a steady state for average temperature, it rises and falls over time. We can also see that the average temperature has exceeded 6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than currently.

Thirdly, given the graph there are other factors affecting global warming and cooling than simply the carbon dioxide level of the planet's atmosphere.

Finally, given the previous rises and falls, it seems more likely we are headed for falling temperatures rather than rising ones.

 

[Rrog]

I'm glad consensus exists in the real world. As interesting as this all is, aside from having fun, none is relevant. It's already well established within the science community.

 

[OddBall1st]

That brought a small laugh from me. I like to debate people with strong opinions counter to mine. I don't enjoy talking to ignorant people but I'm going to let you tell me whether you are informed and wrong, like Heckler or just ignorant. So, here are my questions:

I get that you can't get past the representation of the earth as a globe instead of the real case where it is egg or oblong-shaped. I'm wondering if you can tell me how much difference it makes that the earth is not a perfect sphere?

The other figure that you scratched out is unrelated to your question of the shape of the earth as an egg. Whenever sun strikes a round, oval, oblong or whatever shaped object, the radiation is spread out when it strikes a surface at an angle greater than 90 degrees. You say the drawing is wrong. What would you do to calculate the energy absorbed by a curved surface?

EDIT: Also, you do realize that the seasons and the polar ice caps are created by exactly this effect, don't you?

Great big huge difference it makes,.. especially if you live on the black spots.

The top one is yours, The bottom one is my correction showing how much difference it makes to the black spots and how much hemisphere is heated by season. Slightly exaggerated for viewing.


No, the seasons are a direct result of axis relative to position. That dictates what is heated or cooled.

My correction shows more direct sunlight in the North hemisphere when south is at winter and spread sunlight at the equator, and more spread at the South hemisphere. Yours shows equal at north and South and concentrated in the equator. That is not always the case, in fact my correction shows the Equator gets more time but not more direct. All you gotta do is move the egg around the sun to see when and where`s.

Some might not show up cuz I`m on slow poke mode because I was being bad and it`s rollies house so.........

Remember my main point is how the Equator gets more time under the sun but not more direct rays.

Please excuse my computer illiteracy, they had to invent it before I could learn how to use one.

Looky here....


I guess it`s up top now......

 

[OddBall1st]

for the loss,....

..

 

[OddBall1st]

If you use a sphere, you get incorrect results.

Thanks for providing the reference material. There is a lot of material out there and its best if we can at least begin this with one data set. Ok, so from your viewpoint, what does this all mean regarding global climate change?

The whole graph is climate change, it show that we are in a climate change that should be expected. The degree of that change can be altered by man but not prevented.

No more funding.

 

[Fogdog]

for the loss,....

..View attachment 3608927

Thanks for this. I think its great. I like the envelope-touch too. Inspired.

I think you have a good visualization of what's going on. And you are right in that the earth's temperature at any given point changes depending on tilt, wobble and season.

What I was saying is average temperature of the earth can be calculated without all that. After all, in your drawings, one part cools down while another part warms up at the same time depending on the angle of the sun. When combined and averaged, all that smooths out.

And we had seasons in the sun!

The earth is actually fatter near the equator and skinnier through the poles. Not by a lot though. The difference is about 25 miles in all. Not saying you need to redraw your figures its just that the difference in your drawing is exaggerated and the widest part is around the equator.

What is the diameter of the earth?
The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles (12,756.32 kilometers).
But, if you measure the earth through the poles the diameter is a bit shorter - 7,901 miles (12,715.43 km). Thus the earth is a tad wider (25 miles / 41 km) than it is tall, giving it a slight bulge at the equator. This shape is known as an ellipsoid or more properly, geoid (earth-like).

 

[Fogdog]

If you use a sphere, you get incorrect results.




The whole graph is climate change, it show that we are in a climate change that should be expected. The degree of that change can be altered by man but not prevented.

No more funding.

Is it possible to show evidence of anthropogenic global warming that you would believe?

 

[OddBall1st]

Thanks for this. I think its great. I like the envelope-touch too. Inspired.

I think you have a good visualization of what's going on. And you are right in that the earth's temperature at any given point changes depending on tilt, wobble and season.

What I was saying is average temperature of the earth can be calculated without all that. After all, in your drawings, one part cools down while another part warms up at the same time depending on the angle of the sun. When combined and averaged, all that smooths out.

And we had seasons in the sun!

The earth is actually fatter near the equator and skinnier through the poles. Not by a lot though. The difference is about 25 miles in all. Not saying you need to redraw your figures its just that the difference in your drawing is exaggerated and the widest part is around the equator.

What is the diameter of the earth?
The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles (12,756.32 kilometers).
But, if you measure the earth through the poles the diameter is a bit shorter - 7,901 miles (12,715.43 km). Thus the earth is a tad wider (25 miles / 41 km) than it is tall, giving it a slight bulge at the equator. This shape is known as an ellipsoid or more properly, geoid (earth-like).

It`s kinda scribbled but I did mention slightly exaggerated for viewing. If 75% of the Earth is water and air over water does not heat the same as over land, where are you, no, How are you getting an average of the whole planet when it shoud be at least two averages and the one over water being the largest. We live on land mostly so we don`t get the true feel of living over water cooled air.

I agree with Heckler, finding and average global temperature is like getting an average air pressure out of a moving tire on a bumpy road that gets smooth.

Also, the dark side loses heat faster than the sunny side until it comes back around. Cloudy days can slow that but not contain it from happening.

Getting an average global temperature will leave you with periods of drastic and slight changes and people could easily sound the alarm when it is not necessary. Like the scientists are doing now for cash grants.

 

[Fogdog]

It`s kinda scribbled but I did mention slightly exaggerated for viewing. If 75% of the Earth is water and air over water does not heat the same as over land, where are you, no, How are you getting an average of the whole planet when it shoud be at least two averages and the one over water being the largest. We live on land mostly so we don`t get the true feel of living over water cooled air.

I agree with Heckler, finding and average global temperature is like getting an average air pressure out of a moving tire on a bumpy road that gets smooth.

Also, the dark side loses heat faster than the sunny side until it comes back around. Cloudy days can slow that but not contain it from happening.

Getting an average global temperature will leave you with periods of drastic and slight changes and people could easily sound the alarm when it is not necessary. Like the scientists are doing now for cash grants.

sounds like you have everything you need to know. I thought that drawing with embellishments was great.

There is a lot of good information out there that refutes your conclusion about global temperature not being a valid measurement. Just sayin...the oil company and automotive lobbies have pretty big bucks invested in disinformation on this subject. I don't understand why people believe them over NASA. Heckler may be earnest but he talks a bigger game than he has.

Looking at your earlier post, did you miss that the earth has a larger diameter at the equator? Also by like 0.3% difference or 25 miles out of 7600 miles. Its tiny.

 

[OddBall1st]

Is it possible to show evidence of anthropogenic global warming that you would believe?

I recognize the one we are on our way to accelerating. Between the industrial age and the 1990 burning fields in Kuwait we had to do some damage. I don`t think it is cause for alarm though, but way overdue on cutting emissions.

I also don`t think man is gonna make a dent in the climate changes Nature will bring. One good solar flare could do it all in a days work.

 

[OddBall1st]

Yes calculated that to conclude it sees more sunlight time but not more direct. Did you notice my Earth doesn`t orbit the equator of the sun but more north ?

I like to make fun reading, on a stoner site, Reading is more fun than mental.

Did you acknowledge that the water doesn`t heat the air as land does ? We`re more water than Terra.

 

[OddBall1st]

dog,..it wont let me quote so,

Do you think now that the air is in their favor it would also be a good idea to replant all those rain forests we chopped up ?

Since you can`t lean a ball towards the sun or turn one sideways, but can lean a egg, Wouldn`t that axis be the sole reason you can`t take an average temp. ?

 

[red w. blue]

First by definition, energy transfer between the surface of a soild and any gas like environment is convection. Conduction is general considered via a mechanical link between solid or liquid bodies. Trivial but important.

Your wrong and it shows you don't understand heat at all.
Heat moves two ways conduction and radiation.
Convection can be said to move heat because a gas or a liquid itself moves and can carry heat from one point to another. But both would gain or lose heat only by conduction or radiation. Just like it could be said that heat moves by diffusion, but that's just conduction within a solid.
Do you know what heat is?
I do wander how much heckler knows, its easy to see his intellectual understanding of this well above foggys but he posts like he has taken too much LSD.
Foggy is smart and very good at faking it, also he is dogged in his dogma.

 

[heckler73]

@Fogdog ,

You're making the assumption the Earth is a perfect conductor. You have not justified that, which is why the factor of 4 cannot be applied as such. You're spreading the energy all over without defining a physical mechanism
or rationale for it. I've been trying to point that out to you from the start, but it doesn't seem to sink in, perhaps due to your bias (you are a DOGmatic believer in AGW) and unfamiliarity with the Physics.

What my calculation does is demonstrate the effective instantaneous temperature on the exposed hemisphere. Are you saying it doesn't? I am comparing "apples to apples". I am taking the StefBo eqn and applying it in a (relatively) geometrically-consistent manner, because the exposed side must absorb twice the effective total output (conservation of ENERGY...1st LoT). This is why the day temp is so high and beyond anything we experience (highest temp ever recorded: 331K<360K), ergo, atmospheric cooling of the surface.

What you are copying (without proper comprehension) is the plug'n'chug for effective average temperature over the whole, which is--quite frankly--meaningless. Ultimately, you are denying the difference between day & night. Yet your own cartoon clearly shows there is a "night", so there is no radiation being absorbed on that side (i.e. pure radiative output). This is another reason why the concept of "temperature" is dangerous. If you keep the focus on Energy, and remain consistent, you won't get the erroneous conclusion of climastrology.

Now, I admit I took some liberty (for the sake of time) by jumping straight to a relation that finds a technical maximum (i.e. at zenith), and should perhaps refine it to demonstrate what an "average" over the hemisphere will equate to and why that is a problem under your paradigm . So, I'll do that now:

Going back to the Luminosity balance and applying your absorbed disc (you stated it is an acceptable approximation or else your own calculation is debunked),

That is still using the (unreal) albedo of 0.3, too. Now, the question is, do you accept that answer as a reasonable, effective "average" temperature for the surface of the hemisphere exposed to the Sun, YES or NO?
If not, why not?
Remember, I'm only dealing with the exposed hemisphere facing the Sun. This has nothing to do with the "dark side".

I am now testing your comprehension of the equations involved to see if you understand how the Energy is working. I expect your answer (if in the negative) to explicitly state why that is a problem. If you can't do that, then you are going to have difficulty defending the "factor of 4" argument you're blindly following, when I explain the issue that arises from this type of "averaging".

If it isn't obvious, perhaps a temperature map of the moon in "daylight" (October 2009) will inspire you to see the light. Would you care to apply the StefBo eqn on it? You should be able to ("average" albedo 0.12).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JE003987/pdf



I cut the bottom two graphs off (superfluous). The ticks designate "hours" from "noon" at the origin to "noon" at the end (of course it is a relative measure because of the length of a lunar "day")

 

[god1]

Your wrong and it shows you don't understand heat at all.
Heat moves two ways conduction and radiation.
Convection can be said to move heat because a gas or a liquid itself moves and can carry heat from one point to another. But both would gain or lose heat only by conduction or radiation. Just like it could be said that heat moves by diffusion, but that's just conduction within a solid.
Do you know what heat is?
I do wander how much heckler knows, its easy to see his intellectual understanding of this well above foggys but he posts like he has taken too much LSD.
Foggy is smart and very good at faking it, also he is dogged in his dogma.

It's always useful to describe theoretical behavior by example.

Suggestion, describe how the radiator in your car works and you can answer your own questions.

If you make concentrates using a vacuum chamber, describe how energy is moved in that environment and how it is not.

If you build thermally isolated growing chambers, describe how energy transfer works within that environment.

If your arguement is simply that convection could be thought of as a variant of conduction, within a gaseous environment, well ... that might fly.

It's always useful to think a little before you write.

 

[red w. blue]

Error 2
estimating cooling or energy loss due to emitted planetary radiatioEnergy is intercepted and absorbed on the side that faces the sun. The earth rotates through this radiation field and it gets complicated if we try to account for everywhere the energy goes in the real system. What is discussed here is radiation from a black body, a simplifying assumption to help work through the effect of major variables as they affect a planet's average surface temperature. Regardless of which assumption we use, the law of conservation of energy still applies. Energy in must equal energy out or we've moved into science denial, again.

The conservation of energy is energy is never lost it only changes to a lower form.
The equal in and out is silly also as energy can be retained, or speaking of the earth more or less energy from radiation may come in or out.

And it looked like you were run heckler off. I kind of think he may be very smart and may be like me in that I only read here when high and post only when fucked up and he has taken a lot of LSD. I still have hopes for him. You on the other hand keep crushing my hope for you.

As a side note, we calculate average earth temperature, so the rotation of the earth isn't important in an ideal case. The side that is not facing the sun is colder and the side facing the sun at the equator is hottest but we average all this variation into one number. The earth rotates and all the planet is exposed to the sun, which spreads energy input over a larger surface area but the total input is the same. Again, we calculate average surface temperature, so differences at the poles or equator or due to rotation are cancelled out.

Very hot objects like the sun emit radiation at very high frequencies or low wavelength. The earth, being much cooler, emits long wavelength radiation however the total energy absorbed is equal to the total energy radiated minus whatever is used in chemical reactions, wear due to friction from expansion and contraction and so forth. In this application, we assume an ideal condition where the energy input is equal to the energy output.

I don't wish to spend the long time it would take to point all of your errors. So let me just say that there is no low wavelength.
The higher the energy the shorter the wavelength.
But you take cake for saying "CHEMICAL REACTIONS, WEAR DUE TO FRICTION FROM EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION AND SO FORTH. I could spend an hour typing all the reasons why and ways you are wrong in that part of what you say.

Scientists were hired to prove the theory of global warming [this was done as a way tax countries to replace the money lost from the oil for food scam by the UN under which grew to three times the size] The left took up with the UN in this as did Oboma [started with cap and trade], and have used this tax scam in many forms. When it was seen that any proof for global warming couldn't be found than the name of the tax was changed to CLIMATE CHANGE. There is proof of climate change, after all it has been changing. This started when the earth first got a atmosphere. As for proving anything not so much. The data from these Scientists has been somewhat helpful in understanding the weather.
As for any hypothesis coming from these scientists I will take it for what its worth as I would others researching to prove a point.
Scientists researching bigfoot/sasquatch have came up with a lot with very little money. Think of how much we know now proving there out there over 400 years of sightings, photos, film, castings of foot prints and they also seem to be very good at avoiding humans, and other things that I'm to high to remember.

As for global warming. Should I care if sea level should rise? Should I care if someone should loose their beach house? It will give us all a longer time to grow and with more CO2 faster growth, with the growth in population were going to need more food. If man can stay alive long enough the cold will kill him off.
You should take note that I didn't give my opinion on any of the above.

 

[red w. blue]

It's always useful to describe theoretical behavior by example.

Suggestion, describe how the radiator in your car works and you can answer your own questions.

If you make concentrates using a vacuum chamber, describe how energy is moved in that environment and how it is not.

If you build thermally isolated growing chambers, describe how energy transfer works within that environment.

If your arguement is simply that convection could be thought of as a variant of conduction, within a gaseous environment, well ... that might fly.

It's always useful to think a little before you write.

Sorry but I just showed that you don't understand heat nor how it moves. read what I said and maybe you will start to understand.

 

[red w. blue]

I'm glad consensus exists in the real world. As interesting as this all is, aside from having fun, none is relevant. It's already well established within the science community.

You haven't a clue.

 

[god1]

Sorry but I just showed that you don't understand heat nor how it moves. read what I said and maybe you will start to understand.

Well help a brother out, use those three examples to describe the mechanism for energy transfer.

I like learning things from smart guys.

 

[red w. blue]

Well help a brother out, use those three examples to describe the mechanism for energy transfer.

I like learning things from smart guys.

I asked you one simple question you didn't answer. I fail to understand why I should answer you.