Science Q&A: Cold Weather & Global Warming
in [Physics]
|
Prev: precision definition of a finite-line compared to finite-number #338; Correcting Math
Next: The scheme of Universe.
From: BradGuth on 26 Jan 2010 14:16 On Jan 25, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Science Q&A: Cold Weather &Global Warming > > Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science & Impacts > > > Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent withglobal warming? > > > You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. The two generally > > don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much moisture. So you > > need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold and dry, to > > collide with each other. > > > This condition is not only consistent withglobal warming, but it can be expected > > to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result ofglobal warming. > > Read more... [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102959188264&s=26950&e=001q-qfCbFCZxg8RGZho...] As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) we can't possibly have another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts worth of our mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and natural water cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads of sulfur, plus various natural and artificial ventings of raw/toxic methane contributions that are not exactly helping. Thanks mostly to the solar wind, we are also losing our precious helium and hydrogen by 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that loss might average >10 tonnes/ sec, and without our contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/ sec). In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend a whole lot worse than mother nature could ever hope to achieve. The good news is that essentially well run ourselves out of many natural reservoirs and buried kinds of raw elements, so that whatever remains can readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of getting on with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its diminished biodiversity of traumatized evolution thatll have considerably fewer humans to deal with. Other than all that, plus a measured factor of global dimming that absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong with the good life w/o slow-ice on planet Eden/Earth? Heres a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for everyone. (have yourself a ball) Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer of icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved within this simulation, but none the less its a good enough example of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished. http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml Theres also the Roche Limit to consider: In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces of the primary would exceed the satellites binding forces and would tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996]. The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their densities: Earth 18,470 km Jupiter 175,000 Saturn 147,000 Uranus 62,000 Each near miss by that process of capturing an icy Selene of perhaps 8e22 kg, would have pulled large portions of that thick ice away from its surface, and thereby making its capture easier as mass and thereby energy is extracted from Selene. ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 26 Jan 2010 14:18 On Jan 26, 10:56 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:43:15 -0600, "mary" <nos...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > > >"Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:0rydnf9wkPfbf8DWnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d(a)mchsi.com... > > >>> Science Q&A: Cold Weather &Global Warming > >>> Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science & Impacts > > >>> Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent withglobal>>> warming? > > >>> You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. The > >>> two generally > >>> don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much > >>> moisture. So you > >>> need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold and > >>> dry, to > >>> collide with each other. > > >>> This condition is not only consistent withglobal warming, but it can be > >>> expected > >>> to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result ofglobal>>> warming. > > >what a load of BS. > > No. Its correct. > > Another point is that if CO2 traps heat near the earths surface, then > air higher up will receive less heat from the surface so will become > colder. Acidic water vapor is by far worse of all. ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 26 Jan 2010 14:25 On Jan 26, 7:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/26/10 1:40 AM, Roger Limbaugh wrote: > > > > > Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > >news:0rydnf9wkPfbf8DWnZ2dnUVZ_sNi4p2d(a)mchsi.com: > > >>> Science Q&A: Cold Weather& Global Warming > >>> Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science& > >>> Impacts > > >>> Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent withglobal>>> warming? > > >>> You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. > >>> The two generally don't occur in the same air mass because cold air > >>> can't hold much moisture. So you need two air masses, one that is > >>> warm and moist and one that is cold and dry, to collide with each > >>> other. > > >>> This condition is not only consistent withglobal warming, but it can > >>> be expected to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct > >>> result ofglobal warming. Read more... > > > Stick to amateur astronomy. > > This weather is affecting my winter observing! How about you? How much added water vapor that's CO2, NOx plus otherwise sulfur saturated is getting artificially contributed into our atmosphere? a) 1e6 tonnes/sec ? b) 1e9 tonnes/sec ? c) who gives a hoot ? ~ BG
From: Igor on 26 Jan 2010 14:56 On Jan 26, 10:20 am, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Jan 26, 9:38 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 25, 3:44 pm, Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Jan 25, 1:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Science Q&A: Cold Weather & Global Warming > > > > > Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science & Impacts > > > > > > Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent with global warming? > > > > > > You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. The two generally > > > > > don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much moisture. So you > > > > > need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold and dry, to > > > > > collide with each other. > > > > > > This condition is not only consistent with global warming, but it can be expected > > > > > to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result of global warming. > > > > > Read more... [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102959188264&s=26950&e=001q-qfCbFCZxg8RGZho...] > > > > But global warming should make it less likely that those cold arctic > > > blasts head south. > > > Ask yourself this question: Why does the arctic air always flow more > > or less from northwest to southeast? Once you answer this question, > > maybe you'll understand just how silly that statement is. > > > > Given that the temperature anomaly is on the order of 1/5 of a single > > > degree Celsius, Jay Gulledge is claiming an amazing effect for such a > > > small stimulus. So what should we expect? As CO2 builds up the world > > > goes more and more into an ice age? > > > There's some consensus on that. > > Which is there a consensus on? The statement that a temperature > anomaly in the mean temperature is a 'stimulus' is as nonsensical as > the business about the cold arctic air. Ice age following build up of CO2.
From: Igor on 26 Jan 2010 14:59
On Jan 26, 2:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Science Q&A: Cold Weather &Global Warming > > > Jay Gulledge, Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science & Impacts > > > > Is heavy snowfall or unusually cold weather inconsistent withglobal warming? > > > > You need two things to create heavy snowfall: moist air and cold air. The two generally > > > don't occur in the same air mass because cold air can't hold much moisture. So you > > > need two air masses, one that is warm and moist and one that is cold and dry, to > > > collide with each other. > > > > This condition is not only consistent withglobal warming, but it can be expected > > > to occur more frequently in certain places as a direct result ofglobal warming. > > > Read more... [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102959188264&s=26950&e=001q-qfCbFCZxg8RGZho...] > > As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) we can't possibly have > another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts worth of our > mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and natural water > cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads of sulfur, > plus various natural and artificial ventings of raw/toxic methane > contributions that are not exactly helping. Thanks mostly to the > solar wind, we are also losing our precious helium and hydrogen by > 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that loss might average >10 tonnes/ > sec, and without our contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/ > sec). In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend > a whole lot worse than mother nature could ever hope to achieve. > > The good news is that essentially well run ourselves out of many > natural reservoirs and buried kinds of raw elements, so that whatever > remains can readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of > getting on with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its > diminished biodiversity of traumatized evolution thatll have > considerably fewer humans to deal with. > > Other than all that, plus a measured factor of global dimming that > absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong with the good > life w/o slow-ice on planet Eden/Earth? > > Heres a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for > everyone. (have yourself a ball) > > Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as > well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer > of icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved within > this simulation, but none the less its a good enough example of how a > capture might actually be easily accomplished. > http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml > > Theres also the Roche Limit to consider: > In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was > held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would > be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces > of the primary would exceed the satellites binding forces and would > tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996]. > > The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their > densities: > Earth 18,470 km > Jupiter 175,000 > Saturn 147,000 > Uranus 62,000 > > Each near miss by that process of capturing an icy Selene of perhaps > 8e22 kg, would have pulled large portions of that thick ice away from > its surface, and thereby making its capture easier as mass and thereby > energy is extracted from Selene. > > ~ BG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y |