106 replies to this topic

[Chris]

 

Uh... I know you guys are scientist and all, but you seem to be missing the obvious.  It is GRAVITY pulling it down.  It is doing the same thing to me.

Seems worse in the morning too....?   Coffee seems to have some anti gravity properties but I can't do the math to figure out why.....   

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Actually, the math is quite simple...

 

Start with the mass of the coffee.  Multiply by the inverse ratio of the GPS coordinates of where you are on the planet.  Then do a matrix inversion of the solubility constant of the caffeine crystals, but corrected for centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation and the equatorial bulge coefficient.  Divide this into the velocity of the coffee travelling down your esophagus, but subtract the thrust acceleration of the flatulence departing from your backside.  Once you integrate all these equations into a universal theorem, post it here and we'll argue about it for a long time.

[Chris]

Actually, the math is quite simple...

 

Start with the mass of the coffee.  Multiply by the inverse ratio of the GPS coordinates of where you are on the planet.  Then do a matrix inversion of the solubility constant of the caffeine crystals, but corrected for centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation and the equatorial bulge coefficient.  Divide this into the velocity of the coffee travelling down your esophagus, but subtract the thrust acceleration of the flatulence departing from your backside.  Once you integrate all these equations into a universal theorem, post it here and we'll argue about it for a long time.

I got half way through that and my slide rule seized up......!   Another equation that will go unsolved for the ages....         Chris

[ducky]

This is probably a dumb question, but since this thread is going silly anyway I'll ask it.  Could the way we use water affect ocean temperatures, or is it just a drop in the bucket, so to speak?

 

We pump it from the ground until aquifers collapse.  We irrigate with it, especially during the warmest times of the year.  We heat it for industrial, commercial, and residential use, and then treat it and send it out to the ocean eventually.

 

Is that being studied?

[The Average Joe]

By the time the water reaches the ocean, the temperature is at equilibrium with its surroundings. Any minor difference is indeed a drop in the bucket. The oceans are a primary driver of global climate,so it's good to question what drives the oceans. I'll take the Sun for 1000 Alex!

 

I believe the specific heat of water is around 4 times that of air, however, water is 784 times as dense. In essence, it takes about 3000 times the energy to raise the same volume of water as it does the same volume of air (leaving out a lot of variables).  That is one reason the oceans don't cool down much at night and the air does. Oceans are reasonable stable thermally. However, there is a global ocean current that circulates warm and cool water. That pattern has periodic oscillations, much like our El Nino.  The Pacific has the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic has the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillation. Known as PDO and AMO for short. Some other acronyms that are handy to know when looking at ocean temperatures are ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), and SST (Sea Surface Temperatures).

GOG's concern about sea ice has some merit in that ice is very reflective whereas water is absorptive.  A decrease in sea ice could allow for water to absorb more solar radiation and increase its temperature. HOWEVER, 2 things mitigate that substantially. The first is that sea ice is at very high latitudes which results in a diminished solar effect, and the second is that warmer seas promote more rain and snow.  More rain and snow mean more cloud cover and reflective snow, both of which help cool things down. A beautifully self regulating system.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Hey Joe,  some corrections to the numbers in your post.  These corrections are minor:

 

-  The specific heat of water is almost 6X that of air at the same temperature.  SH of water is 4.186 joule/gram.  SH of air is 0.718 joule/gram.

 

-  The density of water is 816X the density of air.  Water density is 1.0 gram/cc.  Air density is 0.001225 gram/cc.

 

-  Not sure how you did your calculation, but the thermal energy required to heat 1 gram of water 1 degree C is 3281X the energy required to heat 1 gram of air...fairly close to your number.

 

-  The calculations are done using the mass of the air & water, not the volume

 

-  The above numbers apply to water at 4 degrees C and air at STP (standard temperature and pressure which is 0 degrees C and 0.998 atmosphere)

 

You say that ice is more reflective that water, which isn't quite true.  But there's a wrinkle.  A couple basics:

 

-  Water and ice have almost the same emissivity, 0.98 vs 0.97.  Emissivity is the efficiency with which a material absorbs or radiates thermal energy.

 

- Water and ice have almost the same index of refraction, 1.34 vs 1.31.  So if the angle of incoming thermal radiation is low,the energy will be reflected equally.

 

- Ice has about half the specific heat of water, so it will not take on as much thermal energy as water.  But a 2:1 ratio isn't very significant.

 

The wrinkle - you are correct that the polar regions do not absorb thermal energy as much as equatorial regions, but it's not because of the basic properties of the materials (water vs ice).  the primary reason is the low angle of incident solar radiation that arrives at the poles.  Most of the energy is reflected back into the atmosphere.  If the poles were all water, the same would happen as now when they are mostly ice.

[The Average Joe]

Thanks for doing the math. I was just ball-parking the math in my head to keep it simple.  Think I got my numbers from a quick google search of specific heat. 

At the angle of the incoming radiation, I could see water almost having the same reflectivity.  Although to some, it might seem counter-intuitive. So I looked up "albedo of ice vs water"  and according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center , they are far different (of course, they aren't citing the angle of incoming radiation) NSIDC's research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

 

Bold is mine. They are talking about sea ice, and since that only occurs at high latitudes, I assume they are taking into account the angle.

 

Sea ice has a much higher albedo compared to other earth surfaces, such as the surrounding ocean. A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. The sea ice absorbs less solar energy and keeps the surface cooler.

Snow has an even higher albedo than sea ice, and so thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90 percent of the incoming solar radiation. This serves to insulate the sea ice, maintaining cold temperatures and delaying ice melt in the summer. After the snow does begin to melt, and because shallow melt ponds have an albedo of approximately 0.2 to 0.4, the surface albedo drops to about 0.75. As melt ponds grow and deepen, the surface albedo can drop to 0.15. As a result, melt ponds are associated with higher energy absorption and a more rapid ice melt.

 

https://nsidc.org/cr...ses/albedo.html

 

My main point was that while water can easily affect air temperatures, air temperatures have a much harder time affecting water. The primary driver of ocean heat is solar in nature.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

One caution - don't hang too big a hat on albedo numbers.  If an albedo number is stated without noting the spectral range, it is considered to quantify the effect only in the visible light wavelengths.  Very little thermal energy is contained within the visible light spectrum (400 - 700 Angstrom wavelength).  Most thermal radiation is in near IR and far IR wavelengths (1.0 - 50.0 micron wavelength).  A standard black body curve (@ 20 degrees C) illustrates the energy distribution nicely.

[TruthSeeker]

Yeah, I suppose...if you like 4 solid pages of repetition...to each his own..
 

 

If it bothers you so much it's very easy to ignore and skip reading this thread.

 

Kinda odd you felt compelled to poop on it with the trolling comment.

 

Maybe it's a bit over your head? That's ok, I don't understand all the science mumbo jumbo either but this is a very interesting to read thread. Kudos to Joe, Chris and GOG for carrying on an intelligent discussion.

[The Average Joe]

Somebody is clicking with over 2100 page views... c'mon you lurkers, grab a soapbox....

[Chris]

Yep Joe, lots of folks lurking and learning I hope.  All they get on from the national press is that we are doomed, our climate has been damaged, and by us, we evil humans....! We have to change, live low, live with less, feel our guilt for being successful, live cold in the winter, live hot in the summer, drive less, have less kids, move closer to urban, high density population centers where we can be controlled and told how to vote (liberal democrat of course!), those evil corporations, those evil coal miners, those evil lumber companies, those evil herbicide companies, those evil pesticide companies, those evil Pharma companies, those evil oil companies are keeping us down...! They must be punished...!   Taxed, taken before congressional idiots and know nothings, made bankrupt, made to wear the scarlet letter.........!   Yes indeed they are all evil...!   Except for Apple and their slave labor in China, we'll turn the other cheek to that one for personal reasons.........   And I am still waiting for an AGW fan boy to address the CO2 levels I list below...   They always ignore them for some reason........?  Does not fit into the program, the agenda, the smoke and mirror presentation from the left, so it must be ignored. Chris

 

50 million years ago, CO2 at about 500 ppm...
100 million years ago, CO2 at about 1800 ppm....
200 million years ago, CO2 at about 1500 ppm....
300 million years ago, CO2 at about 300 ppm....
400 million years ago, CO2 at about 3500 ppm...
500 million years ago, CO2 at about 4800 ppm....

[The Average Joe]

This just in and relevant to earlier discussion regarding Mississippi river flooding. Check out the bold in quotes and read the following article

 

Joe - hilarious.  the IPCC predicting economic activity???  double-hilarious.  Economists can't even predict economic activity.  They predicted seven of the last four recessions.  My biggest concern is that reaction to warming is going to cost a lot of money.  Look at the Mississippi Valley this week.  Flooding in December is unprecedented.  Gee...could it be related to w-a-r-m-I-n-g?   It's going to cost $billions to repair.  This money could be used for better purposes...like bribing politicians.

And quoting myself from an earlier post:

 

And again with the unprecedented. Maybe in our lifetimes. We have severely changed the natural flows of the river with levees. So yeah, maybe for the last 200 years, December flooding has not happened to the extent as now, but that valley has flooded throughout history with or without man there. Who is to say there weren't greater December floods?

 

Could the AJ have been right?

 

“It was essentially a winter flash flood on a continental-scale river,” Criss said. “The Mississippi has been so channelized and leveed close to St. Louis that it now responds like a much smaller river.”  

 

Boom!  AJ drops the mic and walks off soapbox...

 

 

https://source.wustl...scientist-says/

[Chris]

Joe...!   Good on ya mate...!    And check this out.  Big wave in the UK.  Never saw a wave go this high up a sea cliff....?   Must be more proof of man made weather chaos....!   Chris 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail...ntial-rain.html

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe - regarding the article you posted on Mississippi flooding, the author's points make sense.  No argument.  However, you omit his comment near the end - "The heavy rainfall was probably related to El Nino, and possible intensified by global warming." 

 

As with most things in science and nature, when unusual or unique phenomena occur, there are multiple causes that combine to create something extraordinary.  In the case of huge waves crashing the coast of Britain, several causes should be factored in.  1) The storms at sea which create the original waves were more intense than usual, 2) The winds driving the waves toward the coastline were higher velocity than usual, and 3) Sea levels have risen (even by a few inches) allowing the waves to impact higher on the coast formations where long term water erosion has not smoothed the rocks to better absorb the waves without huge splash-over.  Also, with most phenomena in science and nature, the combination of several causes becomes geometric rather than arithmetic which makes the results more spectacular...or more devastating depending on whether you own beachfront property or not. 

 

So the question is why are these phenomenal causes occurring at the same time?  Is it random coincidence?  Or is it being driven by some fundamental change that is occurring?  Since weather extremes seem to be appearing more often and with greater intensity than historical records show, one might conclude there is something different going on.  In the search for "something different", you keep bumping into the same thing...global warming.  People who disavow the idea of global warming never seem to offer any credible theory that would account for that "something different".  With the absence of alternate theories, and using Occam's Razor, the most likely cause is indeed global warming.  Fortunately, the scientific community seems to be arriving at the same conclusion.  Now they need to convince ordinary people of the same.

[The Average Joe]

Yep, the world is warming very slightly. Never claimed it wasn't.  I think a far more likely "cause" for all these "unprecedented"  events is that there are far more people in far more places with far more cameras and far better equipment to quantify events. When the Sacramento valley flooded completely so that it looked like an inland sea, there were no cameras there to record it. No people on social media moaning about being displaced, etc. That doesn't mean it didn't happen (If a tree falls in the forest and all that...)  We have built our cities in places that should have never been built out and we act surprised when nature acts as it does.

 

I have offered at least a half dozen different scenarios that could account for the various warming and cooling of our planet, so your claim that those of us who doubt man's influence on GW offer nothing does not stand.  There is another new possibility that I find intriguing. Scientists have often wondered if there was a "dark star" that passed by our solar system on long scale intervals of 27 million years (Nemesis theory). No evidence for this star has been found. However, there is pretty compelling evidence for a real 9th planet of substantial mass on a 20,000 year orbit.  https://www.caltech....th-planet-49523

Could the gravity at it's perihelion "adjust" our orbital mechanic or those of our planetary neighbors? A slight change makes for a big difference. It will certainly be interesting to see if the theory pans out with tangible evidence so that a true orbit of planet 9 can be plugged into solar system models. Could be very interesting when paired with Milankovich cycles...