Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Sorcerer on 9 Aug 2006 12:00 "David" <ILikeIt(a)GoNowMail.com> wrote in message news:aynCg.10$SZ3.4(a)dukeread04... | Do you know anything about the effect the precession of the earths axis has | on global temperature distributions? I've been told that the poles are now | pointing more towards the sun now. | You've been told? Ok, let me when I can observe sunrise and sunset in the North, the thought of the sun overhead at the Pole should be interesting. Now, what can I tell you... ermmm... you owe me 1000. I'm sure you believe it, so pay up. Androcles
From: David on 9 Aug 2006 12:35 "Sorcerer" <Headmaster(a)hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:yEnCg.33564$Ca.25715(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > "David" <ILikeIt(a)GoNowMail.com> wrote in message > news:aynCg.10$SZ3.4(a)dukeread04... > | Do you know anything about the effect the precession of the earths axis > has > | on global temperature distributions? I've been told that the poles are > now > | pointing more towards the sun now. > | > > You've been told? Actually you are making a good point. Orbital effects on climate follow from relatively simple and firmly established laws of physics. The laws of motion ignore politics. > Ok, let me when I can observe sunrise and sunset in the North, > the thought of the sun overhead at the Pole should be interesting. > Now, what can I tell you... ermmm... you owe me 1000. I'm > sure you believe it, so pay up. > > > Androcles > > >
From: Hoggle on 9 Aug 2006 13:01 David wrote: > Do you know anything about the effect the precession of the earths axis has > on global temperature distributions? I've been told that the poles are now > pointing more towards the sun now. I can look it up. It's called the Milankovitch Cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle Allow me to do your research for you: "Two caveats are necessary: firstly, that anthropogenic effects (global warming) are likely to exert a larger influence, at least over the short term; and secondly that since the mechanism by which orbital forcing affects climate is not well understood, there is no very good model relating climate to orbital forcing. An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[7] More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8]" So The cycle is completely unable to account for any of the recent dramatic warming because it is a slow, steady and marginal effect, compared with the smoking gun that all the coal-funded idiots on here are determined to ignore.
From: Sorcerer on 9 Aug 2006 14:07 "David" <ILikeIt(a)GoNowMail.com> wrote in message news:l9oCg.15$SZ3.3(a)dukeread04... | | "Sorcerer" <Headmaster(a)hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message | news:yEnCg.33564$Ca.25715(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk... | > | > "David" <ILikeIt(a)GoNowMail.com> wrote in message | > news:aynCg.10$SZ3.4(a)dukeread04... | > | Do you know anything about the effect the precession of the earths axis | > has | > | on global temperature distributions? I've been told that the poles are | > now | > | pointing more towards the sun now. | > | | > | > You've been told? | | Actually you are making a good point. Orbital effects on climate follow | from relatively simple and firmly established laws of physics. The laws of | motion ignore politics. | The north pole was "pointing more toward the sun" on Jun 21st, known as the solstice. It's effect on climate is so dramatic we sorcerers and fortune tellers study the stars and give it a special name, "Summer". I'm not really in the prediction business, horology isn't my style, but if you cross my palm with silver I can say with some certainty it will happen again shortly after Winter. The more silver (or gold) you give me, the more accurately I can predict it for you. I'll also need a sphere of crystal and a cup of tea (without the tea bag) because tea bags are a modern invention that preclude reading tea-leaves properly. Chinese tea is preferred to India tea, it has more karma. Oh, and I also need a single gold ear-ring, I don't have one of those either. That old imposter Nostradamus failed to predict man would land on the moon, which is why so many kids today don't believe it happened. If he'd done his job properly we wouldn't be in this situation. Precession changes the direction of the Earth's axis, currently aligned with Polaris, but doesn't change the 23.6 degree tilt. The other effect on climate is indeed precession, the extremes being when the summer tilt is at perihelion and 12,000 or so years later at aphelion. This could be the major influence on periodic ice ages. Man plays no part in it. Nutation IS a change in the tilt, but is quite small. Recorded history doesn't go back far enough to give us much information, but it is almost certain that the fabled flood of Noah was indeed world wide and the waters rose to their present level when the Northern ice cap melted away from Canada and Siberia. A crude estimate of a 2 mile thick ice cap (same as Antarctica) stretching as far south as Youngstown, Ohio would yield a sufficient volume of water for sea level to change by 300 feet. The scree deposited at Morraine State Park in Pennsylvania marks the end of a glacier, rock from Canada was deposited there. Those alarmed by global warming should look even further ahead to the next ice age, rush out and conquer the Sahara desert in preparation for it becoming green once again. If in the meantime sea levels rise and flood major coastal cities (and the whole of Florida), MOVE. You'll have to rebuild Disneyworld somewhere else. Man has survived ice ages, it isn't quite as terrible as tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis or religiously or politically guided terrorists. | | > Ok, let me when I can observe sunrise and sunset in the North, | > the thought of the sun overhead at the Pole should be interesting. | > Now, what can I tell you... ermmm... you owe me 1000. I'm | > sure you believe it, so pay up. | > | > | > Androcles | > | > | > | |
From: kdthrge on 12 Aug 2006 09:57
..7.8 x 10^21 molar quantity of oceans 1.8 x 10^19 molar quantity of atmosphere 75.4 heat capcity of water x molar quantity = 5.8x10^23 joules 20.76 heat capacity of air x molar quantity = 3.7 x 10^20 joules 5.7 x10 ^23 joules is the difference The atmosphere must be 5.7 x 10^23 degrees celcius warmer than the ocean for them to equalize at the same temperature with the ocean one degree warmer. Greanhouse gas theory is deliberate fraud. Can you discuss this topic twit? Or must I teach you the rudiments of science before you undeerstand how much of an idiot you are. Kent Deatherge |