Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Talk About It! > Toker's Den > Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

Thread Title Search
Post Reply
Have you looked at the North Pole lately? Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-19-2018, 08:11 PM #1031
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,167
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh2nGqy9KVw

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 05-19-2018, 09:16 PM #1032
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,167
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jdPQ9aGbY

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


Calculating Planetary Surface Temperatures Made Easy

I have decided to adhere to convention and replace the n with an M. This is to avoid confusion with n which is used by many as the number of moles - not the mean molecular weight. So the formula is now; T = PM/Rρ T = near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin P = near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa R = gas constant 8.314 ρ = near-surface atmospheric density in kg/m³ M = near-surface atmospheric mean molecular weight (grams per mole)

Where is the supposed 33C "Greenhouse Effect"? A GHE of the size claimed by the IPCC or the 'mainstream' climate scientists simply can't be 'baked in' to this formula. Firstly you have the 'problem' of the claimed 33C from the GHE, which because of the gas law results incorporating auto-compression has disappeared. There is also the second problem that if the temperature can be accurately calculated by knowing just three gas parameters, then the climate sensitivity to CO2 has to be extremely low, not more than 0.02C which means that the CO2 alarm is totally unnecessary. In effect, the formula proves that 'extra' CO2 has no more effect than more of any other gas has on temperatures. A hypothesis is presented here that near-surface planetary temperatures on bodies with atmospheric pressures of over10kPa are significantly increased over and above the S-B black body law by a process known as adiabatic auto-compression and not the so-called "greenhouse effect". The proof lies in the formula shown here, which is derived from the Ideal gas law. It is demonstrated that by knowing just three near-surface gas parameters, the actual average near-surface atmospheric temperature of such bodies can be easily calculated. In this video, we look at a simple, alternative way to calculate the average surface atmospheric temperature of a planetary body which has a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa. This turns out to be a re-arrangement of the Ideal Gas Law. Using this formula, the planetary surface temperature can be accurately determined by knowing just three gas parameters; - Average near-surface atmospheric pressure - Average near-surface atmospheric density - Near-surface mean atmospheric molecular weight This calls into question as to whether the probable 33C surface temperature enhancement on Earth - is really a "Greenhouse Effect" caused by greenhouse gases, or whether it has another cause; namely Adiabatic Auto-Compression.

References; Here are the results at 1 bar of pressure (101.3kPa); Jupiter: 165 K (observed) vs 167 K (calculated) Saturn: 134 K (observed) vs 132.8 K (calculated) Uranus: 76 K (observed) vs 76.6 K (calculated) Neptune: 72 K (observed) vs between 68.5 K and 72.8 K (calculated) Use NASA figures; Jupiter; https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...
Saturn; https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...
Uranus; https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...
Neptune; https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...
Fulchignoni, M., Ferri, F., Angrilli, F., Ball, A. J., Bar-Nun, A., Barucci, M. A., ... & Coradini,, M. (2005). In situ measurements of the physical characteristics of Titan's environment. Nature, 438(7069), 785-791. Lindal, G. F., Wood, G., Hotz, H., Sweetnam, D., Eshleman, V., & Tyler, G. (1983). The atmosphere of Titan: An analysis of the Voyager 1 radio occultation measurements. Icarus, 53(2), 348-363. NASA fact sheet data on the planets, (2017). Accessed 10/4/2017 https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary... Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R. A., Miller, R. L., & Lacis, A. A. (2010). Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D20). Principles, T., Nikolov, N., & Zeller, K. (2011). Unified Theory of Climate, poster session at the World Climate Research Program; https://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference 2011/ Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. (2014). Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7(1), 12-15. Wikipedia, Properties of Earth’s atmosphere, (2017). Accessed 6/4/2017. https://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air Zasova, L. V., Ignatiev, N., Khatuntsev, I., & Linkin, V. (2007). Structure of the Venus atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science, 55(12), 1712-1728. Postscript; The formula also woks for the South Pole; 68.13 / (8.314.1.06/28.96) = 223.9 Kelvin (or -49 C) This is the correct average temperature at the South Pole; https://icecube.wisc.edu/pole/weather I have done a quick calculation of the climate sensitivity using this formula, and it is less than 0.03C.

__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 05-20-2018, 07:29 PM #1033
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,167
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...cationCoverPdf
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 05-31-2018, 07:32 PM #1034
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,167
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
Wednesday, 30 May 2018
The Politically Motivated Science of Climatology and the Demonization of Carbon
Written by James Murphy

Climatology is an area of study that comes from many disciplines of science. Meteorologists, astrophysicists, geologists, geophysicists, mathematicians, and oceanographers all lay claim to the title of climatologist. The amount of data that each discipline adds to the study of climatology is astounding — so astounding that no one really understands it all yet, least of all climate alarmists such as carbon credit salesman Al Gore.


Up until the 1970s, climatology was a little-studied and poorly understood concept. We knew that climate existed, of course. We knew that the angle of the sun affected weather, and we knew what to expect in terms of seasonal variations. But no one would presume to know with any certainty if and how climate was changing. The first conclusions drawn on the subject, back in the 1970s, were that the globe was on the verge of a new glacial period in our present ice age (a glacial period is a period of advancing ice — we are still in an ice age as ice sheets still exist in Greenland, the Arctic, and Antarctic). The consensus of a cooling world at that time was 83 percent, by the way.


But the 1980s were a much warmer decade, and eventually, scientific consensus shifted to the global-warming model. In 1989, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study the dangers of a warming globe. Not surprisingly, the IPCC and many leading scientists blamed mankind and our profligate use of fossil fuels for rising CO2 levels.

That’s when politics became involved. And lest you think that it all came from the left of the political spectrum, remember that conservative hero Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain was one of the first to call for an all-out war on global warming. But regardless of which side of the spectrum the calls for action emanated from, the die was cast. Politics became involved, and the science became suspect.


The plant food known as carbon dioxide was demonized. In 2013, the figure of 400 parts per million (PPM) was said to be a “tipping point.” It was said to be an unprecedented number — the “highest ever recorded,” and certain to cause catastrophic global warming if not curtailed immediately.


But the first accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 began in the 1950s. Those 60 some-odd-years are hardly a long enough sample size. Back then, CO2 levels were measured at 314ppm, which makes 400ppm seem like a gigantic increase. But even at that 400ppm number, Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.


Another thing that climate scientists won’t tell you is that complex plant life depends on having at least 150ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that carbon dioxide during the last ice age was dangerously low, only about 200ppm. It’s entirely possible to have too little CO2 in the atmosphere.


But except during times of advancing ice ages, that has not been the case. Ice core data from Antarctica shows that atmospheric CO2 has waxed and waned throughout the eons. In fact, during the Cambrian geologic time period, CO2 levels averaged nearly 6,000 ppm. Evolutionists will tell you that this was the time of the Cambrian Explosion, the time when most complex animal and plant life appeared on the Earth. Does that mean CO2 is the driver of evolution and not natural selection?


Of course not. Such a conclusion would becompletely capricious and based on incomplete data — just like the conclusions and doomsday predictions of climate alarmists today.


Princeton physicist William Happer, an honest scientist, much hated by the climate-alarmist community, has recently pushed back against the demonization of CO2. “You might call me a scientist who is persuaded that doubling or tripling CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will be a major benefit to life on Earth,” Happer said.



Despite what Al Gore tells you, carbon dioxide is simply not a pollutant. It is one atom of carbon covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. We release it into the atmosphere each time we exhale. Plants need it to survive. It is a trace gas, only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. It’s not a demon; it’s a necessity of life.


The reliability of any type of scientific study goes down in direct proportion to the amount of politics involved in that study. When the funding of science is tied to a certain outcome, said science is suspect. And that is the case with a large percentage — shall we say 97 percent? — of climatology today.


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...tion-of-carbon
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-31-2018, 07:41 PM #1035
Illuminate
OG refugee

Illuminate's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Legal state
Posts: 1,719
Illuminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud ofIlluminate has much to be proud of
I only breath out co2 to piss off the climate nazis.
__________________
P = G + E + GxE + error

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Nature View Post
I love how this is a plant we've been breeding and manipulating for hundreds of years, if not more, in order to serve our needs yet we've only just recently started taking notes.
Illuminate is offline Quote


Old 06-02-2018, 04:31 PM #1036
GMT
I am, therefore I think

GMT's Avatar

Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 6,120
GMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant futureGMT has a brilliant future
Even when the transvestite pedo in charge of the catholic church says there is no such thing as hell, some people continue to believe in it. The same is true with climate change. There are people out there who will choose to believe what ever makes them feel better. Its called cognitive dissonance. If it doesn't serve them to believe it, and they don't have the background or ability to understand it, they never will never accept it.
At some point you have to stop trying to educate them.
__________________
When as men, our only guide to right and wrong is the ability or inability to act, we cannot truly call ourselves men.

Copyrights on all photographic work are reserved
GMT is offline Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-04-2018, 07:31 PM #1037
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,167
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
https://sci-hub.tw/

^^^^^^^^^^
using this link to avoid paywalls on most scientific papers. one can read the paper of interest by pasting the url of the paper into the search function of the above link.


for example :


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2018JD028355



returns a page with the abstract of the paper of interest. below the title is a date of publishing and a url, just copy and paste the url into the search function line...


.... https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028355 ....


this will open the paper so you can study it.


Land surface air temperature data are considerably different among BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI

Yuhan Rao
Shunlin Liang
Yunyue Yu



First published: 28 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028355

PDF
Tools
Share


Abstract

Several groups routinely produce gridded land surface air temperature (LSAT) datasets using station measurements to assess the status and impact of climate change. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) suggests that estimated global and hemispheric mean LSAT trends of different datasets are consistent. However, less attention has been paid to the inter‐comparison at local/regional scales, which is important for local/regional studies. In this study we comprehensively compare four datasets at different spatial and temporal scales, including BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI. The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4°C for the global and northern hemisphere and 0.6°C for the southern hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern mid‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8°C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four datasets show significant variations over South America, Africa, the maritime continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different datasets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists. Our analysis shows that the differences across scales are associated with the availability of stations and the use of infilling techniques. Our results suggest that conventional LSAT datasets using only station observations have large uncertainties across scales, especially over station‐sparse areas. In developing future LSAT datasets, the data uncertainty caused by limited and unevenly distributed station observations must be reduced.





be well
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-05-2018, 05:47 AM #1038
G.O. Joe
Senior Member

G.O. Joe's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ditchweed City
Posts: 1,173
G.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to all
Dude you realize around here we set a record amount of record high days every year. It seems to happen everywhere. Winter is gone just like the honeybees and low CO2 levels. It's not up for debate. If your spin doctors had come up with a way to blame Obama and Hillary you'd be leading the charge to prove ongoing global disaster, and they would have been hanged live on TV by Trump for it by now.
__________________
In the clinical field, the practical application of these substances must be awaited with the usual necessary patience. - Roger Adams
Marihuana
February 19, 1942
G.O. Joe is offline Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-05-2018, 07:42 PM #1039
armedoldhippy
Senior Member

armedoldhippy's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tennessee, hell yeah!
Posts: 6,088
armedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivor
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.O. Joe View Post
Dude you realize around here we set a record amount of record high days every year. It seems to happen everywhere. Winter is gone just like the honeybees and low CO2 levels. It's not up for debate. If your spin doctors had come up with a way to blame Obama and Hillary you'd be leading the charge to prove ongoing global disaster, and they would have been hanged live on TV by Trump for it by now.
common sense rears its unpopular head! thank you...
__________________
smoking more pot is NOT the answer to my problems. my problem is that i need more problems that smoking more pot IS the answer to...
armedoldhippy is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-05-2018, 11:17 PM #1040
TychoMonolyth
Senior Member

TychoMonolyth's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: 45N. Ottawa / Montreal corridor
Posts: 2,356
TychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivorTychoMonolyth is a survivor
My family farms. Mention a climate change hoax at dinner and they'll feed you to the pigs. I never heard of running out of hay in 55 years. That was as ridiculous as no snow all winter. Now it happens every few years. Hell, we get maybe 3 weeks of enough snow on the ground to use our snowmobiles, when we used to get two full months! This is just fracking insane. And when the US corn belt starts screaming, the armchair scientists will blame china for using weather modification technology or blame HAARP for it.

Sheesh... Quit following Alex Jones people. You do know the nut bars are getting rich off you right?
__________________
~

2018 Season's Post Mortem and Best Practices

~

Silverback's Threads: the Complete Collection
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?threadid=299104

Julian's Massive Outdoor Grow thread
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?threadid=62895

------------
TychoMonolyth is online now Quote


4 members found this post helpful.

Post Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:03 PM.




This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.