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 05-16-2018, 06:21 PM #1041
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,099
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by TychoMonolyth View Post
The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that Earth surface's became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago).

715 million years ago the entire planet was encased in snow and ice. This frozen wasteland may have been the birthplace of complex animals


View Image
May 14, 2018
Orbital variations can trigger ‘snowball’ states in habitable zones around sunlike stars

Peter Kelley UW News

A NASA artist’s impression of Earth as a frigid “‘snowball” planet.

New research from the University of Washington indicates that aspects of an otherwise habitable-seeming exoplanet planet’s axial tilt or orbit could trigger such a snowball state, where oceans freeze and surface life is impossible.NASA

Aspects of an otherwise Earthlike planet’s tilt and orbital dynamics can severely affect its potential habitability — even triggering abrupt “snowball states” where oceans freeze and surface life is impossible, according to new research from astronomers at the University of Washington.

The research indicates that locating a planet in its host star’s “habitable zone” — that swath of space just right to allow liquid water on an orbiting rocky planet’s surface — isn’t always enough evidence to judge potential habitability.

Russell Deitrick, lead author of a paper to be published in the Astronomical Journal, said he and co-authors set out to learn, through computer modeling, how two features — a planet’s obliquity or its orbital eccentricity — might affect its potential for life. They limited their study to planets orbiting in the habitable zones of “G dwarf” stars, or those like the sun.

A planet’s obliquity is its tilt relative to the orbital axis, which controls a planet’s seasons; orbital eccentricity is the shape, and how circular or elliptical — oval — the orbit is. With elliptical orbits, the distance to the host star changes as the planet comes closer to, then travels away from, its host star.

Deitrick, who did the work while with the UW, is now a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Bern. His UW co-authors are atmospheric sciences professor Cecilia Bitz, astronomy professors Rory Barnes, Victoria Meadows and Thomas Quinn and graduate student David Fleming, with help from undergraduate researcher Caitlyn Wilhelm.

The Earth hosts life successfully enough as it circles the sun at an axial tilt of about 23.5 degrees, wiggling only a very little over the millennia. But, Deitrick and co-authors asked in their modeling, what if those wiggles were greater on an Earthlike planet orbiting a similar star?

Previous research indicated that a more severe axial tilt, or a tilting orbit, for a planet in a sunlike star’s habitable zone — given the same distance from its star — would make a world warmer. So Deitrick and team were surprised to find, through their modeling, that the opposite reaction appears true.

“We found that planets in the habitable zone could abruptly enter ‘snowball’ states if the eccentricity or the semi-major axis variations — changes in the distance between a planet and star over an orbit — were large or if the planet’s obliquity increased beyond 35 degrees,” Deitrick said.

The new study helps sort out conflicting ideas proposed in the past. It used a sophisticated treatment of ice sheet growth and retreat in the planetary modeling, which is a significant improvement over several previous studies, co-author Barnes said.

“While past investigations found that high obliquity and obliquity variations tended to warm planets, using this new approach, the team finds that large obliquity variations are more likely to freeze the planetary surface,” he said. “Only a fraction of the time can the obliquity cycles increase habitable planet temperatures.”

Barnes said Deitrick “has essentially shown that ice ages on exoplanets can be much more severe than on Earth, that orbital dynamics can be a major driver of habitability and that the habitable zone is insufficient to characterize a planet’s habitability.”

The research also indicates, he added, “that the Earth may be a relatively calm planet, climate-wise.”

This kind of modeling can help astronomers decide which planets are worthy of precious telescope time, Deitrick said: “If we have a planet that looks like it might be Earth-like, for example, but modeling shows that its orbit and obliquity oscillate like crazy, another planet might be better for follow-up” with telescopes of the future.”

The main takeaway of the research, he added, is that “We shouldn’t neglect orbital dynamics in habitability studies.”

Other co-authors are Benjamin Charnay, a former UW post-doctoral researcher now with the LESIA Observatoire de Paris; and John Armstrong of Weber State University, who earned his doctorate at the UW.

The research used storage and networking infrastructure provided by the Hyak supercomputer system at the UW, funded by the UW’s Student Technology Fee. The work was funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute through the UW-based Virtual Planetary Laboratory.
###
For more information, contact Deitrick at deitrr@astro.washington.edu or russell.deitrick@csh.unibe.ch; or Barnes at rory@astro.washington.edu.
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Click to visit Venus Vapes
Old 05-19-2018, 07:11 PM #1042
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,099
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, 08:16 PM #1043
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,099
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, 06:29 PM #1044
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,099
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, 06:32 PM #1045
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,099
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, 06:41 PM #1046
Illuminate
Senior Member

Illuminate's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Legal state
Posts: 1,409
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, 03:31 PM #1047
GMT
I am, therefore I think

GMT's Avatar

Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 6,023
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, 06:31 PM #1048
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,099
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, 04:47 AM #1049
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, 06:42 PM #1050
armedoldhippy
Senior Member

armedoldhippy's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tennessee, hell yeah!
Posts: 5,531
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.

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 06:41 AM.




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.