Global warming

Introduce yourself, talk about beer, crocs, headlines, dugongs or Paris Hilton.
Post Reply
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

Climate change is an indisputable fact. The symptoms support that.

All the argument is about the cause AND that's where science has let the world down.

The discussion has been hijacked with the result that few people trust the science anymore.

The ratbag green element's doom and gloom rhetoric has been rejected by "quiet" Australians.

Their biggest supporter (the ALP machine) is still in a state of shock and trying to work out how to disentangle themselves from the greens.

Despite being handed a golden opportunity to sort the country out (infrastructure, energy, employment, economic), the Morrison Govt hasn't done anything.

With the ALP still skipping along the yellow brick road hand-in-hand with Di Natale (looking for a turn-off to part ways), they have yet to find one.

The thing to be remembered is that the very same people who managed to get rid of Comrade Turnbull, are all still there (with the exception of Pine and Bishop). ALL of them.

To me, that indicates that the current Govt got in because it promised not go down the green path.

Unfortunately, it didn't say what path it DID want to go down.

And that's where we are currently stuck. Nobody is offering up a direction for Aus.

A pox on both of their houses.


Regards
Ronje
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

Ever had a look at a cycle of something?

A tide cycle? A radio frequency cycle? A magnetic cycle?

There are 2 peaks. One being positive and one being negative (in the opposite direction). That's where the peaks occur but the rate of change of amplitude over time is minimum.

There are also 2 nulls where the amplitude is zero and where the cycle is going in the opposite direction.

Guess where the rate of change is greatest?

At the nulls.

Thinking about Milankovich, the 41,000 years represents 1 cycle of obliquity change.

The amount of sun's radiation hitting the earth varies in terms of where the peaks occur in sympathy with the position of the tropics which are both changing.

The Tropic of Capricorn goes from Bundaberg (0 years) to Clairview (20,500 years) and back to Bundaberg (41,000 years).

At the moment the Tropic is at Rockhampton (year 10,250) and travelling north at 11 metres per year at full speed.

As it nears Clairview, it slows down because the cycle is now reversing direction. Now the Tropic is only travelling north at 1 metre per year. Soon it will stop (at year 20,500) and become stationary.

Then head back south towards Bundaberg picking up speed towards 11 metres per year.


At year 30,750 it passes through Rockhampton again (heading south this time) at max speed.

So when are we going to see max rate of change of climate in the 41,000 year cycle?

At cycle years 10,250 and 30,750.

That's when the Tropic will be at Rocky but at 20,500 years apart.

So when do we think that we can expect to see max rate of climate change?

Right about now (2019) and again in about 20,500 years time.

Ditto with the Tropic of Cancer.

I'll put up a little drawing which shows it more clearly.
Regards
Ronje
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

The most annoying thing about this climate change discussion was/is the claim that "The science is settled" intended to exclude any discussion to the contrary. That's when the mad rush to blame mankind's generation of CO2 started.

The science is far from settled.

A couple of posts ago I used the term exculpatory.

To prove that something is a fact, ALL evidence must be looked at including any evidence that shows that the facts provided are NOT the only explanation.

That type of evidence is called exculpatory.

Failure by a gung-ho police officer to look for exculpatory evidence ( even when told) almost caused the case against Ivan Milat to fail.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant (man's relationship with CO2 in this case) that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

The proponents of the CO2 theory only presented inculpatory evidence (favourable to present guilt) and did NOT present exculpatory evidence (favourable to present innocence).

THEN the claim was made that the science was settled which is a load of rubbish.

Milankovich's findings (not just about earth's obliquity changes) clearly needed to be considered publicly and weren't.

"An inconvenient truth" as Al Gore said about inculpatory presentations about CO2.

Milankovich's exculpatory evidence was NOT presented by the scientific community. Only inculpatory evidence was presented.

There may very well be other exculpatory reasons for climate change that the scientists are aware of but won't now present or discuss in this toxic middle ages mentality of intolerance towards free thinking.

To be honest, THAT silence is what has destroyed the reputation of the world's scientific community (in my view).

Look for the diagram of cyclic change wrt rate of change coming soon.
Regards
Ronje
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

Screenshot (134).png
The top screenshot shows where the Tropic of Capricorn will be over the next 41,000 years. Its currently over Rockhampton and heading north at a great rate of knots.
IMG_20190828_0001.jpg
This screenshot is the image of 1 cycle of obliquity change over 41,000 years.

The points A,C and E are those at which the fastest rate of change in position is occurring. A is at Rocky (heading north), B is at Clairview (slowly turning around), C is at Rocky again (heading south), D is near Bundaberg (slowly turning around) and E is back at Rocky (heading north again at a great rate of knots).

The greatest rate of change is at points A,C and E over that 41,000 year period. Rate of change is indicated by the distance along the X (horizontal axis) travelled compared to the distance along the Y (vertical axis) travelled in that same time period.

The greater the slope of the line denoting path travelled indicates rate of change. Mathematical smoke and mirrors shows that the TAN of the angle (slope of the line) shows rate of change. TAN angle is greater at A,C and E. TAN angle is zero at B and D (so long term climate stability at those points on the cycle. Might not be pleasant climate but at least it'll be stable).

The cycle graph only shows what happens to the 2 tropics (Capricorn AND Cancer). They are actually heading towards each other at TWICE the rate of that exhibited by each as they head towards the equator.

So...is it a surprise that the changes being rung in seem to be happening faster? Considering what's happening with the Tropics, it'd be surprising if there wasn't rapid indicator change.

A similar graph can be drawn for ANY place on the earth's surface thus showing areas where the amount of radiation from sun changes as the distance from the sun changes in sympathy with the cycle.

Change in the amount of radiation on the earth's surface at any point will introduce a change in climate at that point (climatic change because it happens for a long period).

What I've pointed out in respect of Milankovitch's cycle of obliquity change is but one of THREE orbital changes going on simultaneously. Orbital eccentricity change introduces a second player and precession change introduces a third player.

I'll settle for looking at one at a time because of the orbital change interactions and the octopus making love to bagpipes analogy.

The 3 changes reinforce or degrade the effects of each other and influence the amount of radiation hitting the earth and forming climate.

ANY of those three cycles introduces climate change. If all three happen to line up at the same time the results can be pretty devastating on climate on the earth's surface.

A classic case of the saying we've all heard before " When the planets align...……".

The cycle diagram depicting rate of change vs position is a simple exercise in mathematics and can apply to ANYTHING involving change of 2 variables. In this case the variables are time (horizontal X axis) and position (vertical Y axis).


The science is settled? In a pig's eye.

The maths isn't even settled but then that's an inconvenient truth...…………. (according to Al Gore).

Here's the link to Milankovitch's 3 cycles for those who want to have a look. There are plenty more.

You guys will make up your own minds about the causes of climate change. I'm just presenting a alternative (exculpatory) explanation which I believe carries more evidence than that presented by Al Gore and some others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GUcn07enz4

Either way, I hope its all over by summer so I can go fishing.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Regards
Ronje
User avatar
AM
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by AM »

Your last verse is a cracker Ron. Merry Christmas. Matt your last post has one fact in it and one opinion. But you can have a merry Christmas too
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

Hello Andy.

How ya travelling?
Regards
Ronje
User avatar
Matt Flynn
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 16186
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
Location: Somewhat Southerly
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by Matt Flynn »

Merry Xmas to you AM :mrgreen:

Ron, what happens if all three align and you also have vast amounts of excess methane, CO2 and nitrous oxide in the air?

Meanwhile ... https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south- ... ng-to-54c/

https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... ce0dc2014c
User avatar
Matt Flynn
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 16186
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
Location: Somewhat Southerly
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by Matt Flynn »

Interesting story here suggests that one big volcano can cool the earth down ... https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11 ... r-be-alive
User avatar
AM
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by AM »

Didn’t the guardian report all the ice had melted?
User avatar
Matt Flynn
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 16186
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
Location: Somewhat Southerly
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by Matt Flynn »

No need to rely on newspapers re polar ice, you can watch it here .... http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charc ... ice-graph/

I think it only covers ice extent, not thickness. Thickness has declined substantially. Significant changes began in the Arctic in 2007.
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

Ron, what happens if all three align and you also have vast amounts of excess methane, CO2 and nitrous oxide in the air?

The 3 parameters change wrt each other over time.

Currently (2019), eccentricity is changing rather rapidly, obliquity is changing at its fastest rate and precession (the change with the smallest effect) has just about peaked for its current cycle.

Look at the simple graph I put up previously for the obliquity change wrt the Tropic of Capricorn. Rapid change at the moment.

Currently the influence of the gases contribute little to the changing climate.

When all three of the major parameters align it'll be in approx. 125 thousand years from now when climatic changes peak. The effect of the gases will be the least of anybody's worry by that stage.

Between now and 125 thousand years the combined effect of the 3 major parameters will wax and wane. Combined effect sometimes less than now and at some periods more than now.

Look at the introduction of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GUcn07enz4 for 2017 marker on the diagram.

We'll have probably been hit by an asteroid sometime in the next 125 thousand years anyway and won't have to worry about climate change. Odds are good for one.
Regards
Ronje
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

Greta is at it again.
Climate change.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Regards
Ronje
User avatar
Matt Flynn
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 16186
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
Location: Somewhat Southerly
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by Matt Flynn »

We are currently at a solar output minimum in the sun's 11-year cycle.

Makes you wonder how much warmer it will be in 10 years near the peak of the next maximum cycle, given that heat records have been dropping like flies at the minimum.

Would be nice if it were Milankovitch cycles and it was all just a bit of a heat wave ...

Meanwhile, South Australian electricity prices are apparently down on the back of green energy, despite all the gloomy forecasts ...
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje »

Effect on earth's surface by obliquity change (earth's axis standing up straighter).
Suns rays on earth's surface.png
Amount of sun's radiation (in the form of heat) that hits the earths surface is dependent on how far north or south of the equator that we look.

That's determined by the angle at which the rays strike.

Sun's radiation rays B.
Between the 2 tropics (equator being the centre line) the angle is 90 degrees so rays hit full on. Red circle - small area. It also means that the earth's atmosphere has minimum effect on intensity of rays as its a short distance from earth's outer atmosphere to surface of earth at 90 degrees angle. The radiation is not reduced much in its passage through the earth's atmosphere. That's why its hotter in the tropic zone.

As the tilt of the earth's axis sits more vertically (obliquity change as per Milankovitch), not a lot happens in the tropic zone. It just gets a bit narrower and changes from already hot to a bit hotter.

Sun's radiation rays A
However, on the earth's surface to north and south of the tropic zone, the angle that the rays strike the earth is less than 90 degrees and gets lesser as you approach the poles.
However, at those places the distance that rays A have to travel from first hitting the atmosphere before striking the earth is much greater (2-3 times) because they're coming in at a shallower angle than rays B. Therefore there's less radiation reaching the earth's surface at that point PLUS whatever amount that gets there is spread over a larger area of the earth's surface.

Orange oval - larger area. That's why it gets colder as you move towards the polar zones.

So it gets warmer in summer and it gets warmer in winter than it did previously at that point as the angle of the earth straightens up. And it happens at all points on the globe but is more noticeable the further you get from the tropic zone.

Guess what we call that? Global warming.

And what does global warming bring about? Climate change.

We're about 1/2 way through that obliquity change towards the max vertical angle (just another 10,000 years to reach the maximum).

A consequent effect of warming is the effect on the earth's wind patterns which have an even more profound effect on warming. We'll have a look at that a bit later.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Regards
Ronje
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Barramundi Banter”