|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 30, 2021 15:01:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Aug 30, 2021 15:48:39 GMT
nice link.
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Aug 31, 2021 1:00:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 3, 2021 15:30:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 3, 2021 18:31:40 GMT
Unless "the science" has changed dramatically, the standard planetary energy model still supports the observation that our sun provides the overwhelming proportion of radiation/energy that heats our planet. Furthermore, this radiation is overwhelmingly concentrated in the tropical-subtropical (35N - 35S) portions of the planet. Differential oceanic and atmospheric currents redistribute energy between the equator and the poles. Standard theory has held that the high-energy portions of the globe largely drive the flows. But now (in desparation?) the "magic buttercups" at the BBC can claim with a straight face, that it is the increase in the very small amounts of energy at the poles that really drives the planetary weather patterns. And it is the increase in this energy pygmy that is really driving the merridional patterns of the jet streams and coincident equatorward and poleward movements of cold and warm air masses. Thus slightly warmer temperatures in the Arctic overwhelm the planetary heat engine and deliver great masses of cold Arctic air equatorward. Thus hot begets cold. Never matter that the sub-tropical high pressure zones (the descending flanks of the tropical-subtropical Hadley cells) have in accepted past theory, held the polar jet streams in a relatively tight circumpolar flow pattern. Strong solar cycles have been shown to increase surface pressures in the sub-tropics as Hadley cells become more energetic, while weaker solar cycles have reduced these pressures. Weaker sub-tropical pressures are also associated with more merridional polar jet patterns. But never let it be said that the BBC would allow a few inconvenient observations get in the way of dogma. Climate change: Arctic warming linked to colder winters www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58425526 |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 3, 2021 21:13:04 GMT
Unless "the science" has changed dramatically, the standard planetary energy model still supports the observation that our sun provides the overwhelming proportion of radiation/energy that heats our planet. Furthermore, this radiation is overwhelmingly concentrated in the tropical-subtropical (35N - 35S) portions of the planet. Differential oceanic and atmospheric currents redistribute energy between the equator and the poles. Standard theory has held that the high-energy portions of the globe largely drive the flows. But now (in desparation?) the "magic buttercups" at the BBC can claim with a straight face, that it is the increase in the very small amounts of energy at the poles that really drives the planetary weather patterns. And it is the increase in this energy pygmy that is really driving the merridional patterns of the jet streams and coincident equatorward and poleward movements of cold and warm air masses. Thus slightly warmer temperatures in the Arctic overwhelm the planetary heat engine and deliver great masses of cold Arctic air equatorward. Thus hot begets cold. Never matter that the sub-tropical high pressure zones (the descending flanks of the tropical-subtropical Hadley cells) have in accepted past theory, held the polar jet streams in a relatively tight circumpolar flow pattern. Strong solar cycles have been shown to increase surface pressures in the sub-tropics as Hadley cells become more energetic, while weaker solar cycles have reduced these pressures. Weaker sub-tropical pressures are also associated with more merridional polar jet patterns. But never let it be said that the BBC would allow a few inconvenient observations get in the way of dogma. Climate change: Arctic warming linked to colder winters www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58425526I can't help but hope this nonsense bites itself in the ass. This is reactive "science" not predictive. The issue they have in stating such a case so affirmatively is if the Arctic cools, and cold events as they describe increase in magnitude, they're going to have to react to that to with more "science". This will weaken their position. It's quite clear that their models never predicted this scenario, yet they "prove" it retrospectively. Their problem is they can't predict anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Sept 5, 2021 21:40:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 5, 2021 22:34:20 GMT
NASA gets some "Learnin". Back to the Global Electric Circuit
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Sept 6, 2021 22:14:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Sept 6, 2021 22:19:53 GMT
Kim Jong Un calls for ‘urgent action’ on climate change amid North Korean food shortage Third Enlarged Meeting of Political Bureau of 8th C.C., WPK Held
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 7, 2021 0:52:45 GMT
My personal favorite. 1969 NYT: "Unless we are extremely lucky, everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation will get worse unless we change our behavior." At least the wicked witch of the west had the courtesy to melt with minimal theatrics.  Although the flying monkeys were a bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 10, 2021 0:01:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 10, 2021 10:38:36 GMT
That's inconvenient seeing as cloud modelling is a struggle.... |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 10, 2021 11:29:23 GMT
That's inconvenient seeing as cloud modelling is a struggle.... When the failure to adequately account for cloud dynamics in modeling is discussed, I have read that a general consensus is the +- cloud effect on global warming generally averages out and therefore isn’t an issue. Obviously nonsense if your head contains a functioning brain. |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 10, 2021 12:48:17 GMT
That's inconvenient seeing as cloud modelling is a struggle....  |
|
Although the flying monkeys were a bonus.