crookesjoe Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 Hmmm... ... I'm not sure if it's a side-effect of all these extra UV rays that we're being bombarded with but I'm going to need to wear a pair of sunglasses to read many more posts like the one above. You cant ridicule the man wiyhout backing up why you think he so wrong. Thats a cheap tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHRemovals Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 The coast will be at Gainsbrough not skeggy and May is denier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 6, 2017 Share Posted May 6, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Grindley Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) Consider for example Carlisle. In 2005 it flooded badly, worse than in recorded history. Such things are of course to be expected, about once every couple of hundred years or so, and of course it is just coincidence that it was worse than has ever been seen before. So they rebuilt and improved the flood defences over and above what would have protected them from the floods they had just had. In 2015 it flooded again, overcoming the flood defence by a couple of feet. So by what measure do you hold two bicentennial weather events inside a decade as not being an increase in frequency? Are you measuring just Carlisle or all of the world's cities? Some people have won the lottery twice. ---------- Post added 08-05-2017 at 10:01 ---------- When energy transfers from one system to another not all the energy stays in its original form. The rules apply equally to car engines as to the Earth. So a percentage of this heat energy transfers into kinetic energy. To satisfy the zeroth law of thermodynamics energy must transfer towards the poles. In a situation when the incident heat at the equator is higher and the incident heat at the poles stays the same, more energy will need to transfer towards the poles. As the percentage that transfers into kinetic energy stays roughly the same there will be more kinetic energy. Most of this increasing amount of kinetic energy is transferred eventually into heat and so both routes move a significant amount of the heat energy towards the poles. Due to the properties of the Earth a heat equilibrium is never achieved which results in heat energy gradient. This gradient is unstable because of rotation and local effects such as oceans, topography, hydrological cycles etc. The steeper the gradient the more instability kicks in. This instability is weather. More energy means more instability, more instability means more weather, more weather means... Come back when you have found some sort of peer reviewd science which shows the mechanism in more detail than your word waving gibberish. You will need to convince somebody who understands words like entropy, energy, enthalpy, energy gradients and the like and is not at all intimidated by big words that you plainly have no clue about. ---------- Post added 08-05-2017 at 10:03 ---------- Is this likely to get better or worse with rising sea levels and expanding deserts? The sea levels are not going to rise much at all. Deserts have expanded in cold periods and contracted in warm ones. Edited May 8, 2017 by Tim Grindley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 The sea levels are not going to rise much at all. Come back when you have found some sort of peer reviewd science which shows the mechanism in more detail than your word waving gibberish. Deserts have expanded in cold periods and contracted in warm ones. Come back when you have found some sort of peer reviewd science which shows the mechanism in more detail than your word waving gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Grindley Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 Come back when you have found some sort of peer reviewd science which shows the mechanism in more detail than your word waving gibberish. Come back when you have found some sort of peer reviewd science which shows the mechanism in more detail than your word waving gibberish. OK, the IPCC says that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 is 1m. This is however not currently happening and the long term rate of about 20cm/century is still on the go. The Sahara was a lush land of woods and grassland when it was warmer in the Holocene Optimal, the climate which was considered optimal for humans, in the early bronze age. It is for you to prove the case for action not me to prove a negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) OK, the IPCC says that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 is 1m. This is however not currently happening and the long term rate of about 20cm/century is still on the go. The Sahara was a lush land of woods and grassland when it was warmer in the Holocene Optimal, the climate which was considered optimal for humans, in the early bronze age. So you are prepared to go back 10 thousand years to support your hypothesis, but you are only prepared to look 80 years forward? And you need to provide links... Edited May 8, 2017 by Hairyloon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 I have A levels in maths and physics. It therefore amazes me that you are having trouble understanding Annie's post as that is easily accessible to those with a good foundation in the relevant science like yourself. There is nothing contentious or incorrect in what Annie has said so I must profess confusion as to where you appear to be having problems. ---------- Post added 08-05-2017 at 10:32 ---------- OK, the IPCC says that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 is 1m. This is however not currently happening and the long term rate of about 20cm/century is still on the go. The Sahara was a lush land of woods and grassland when it was warmer in the Holocene Optimal, the climate which was considered optimal for humans, in the early bronze age. It is for you to prove the case for action not me to prove a negative. And before the Holocene Wet epoch what was it like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 Come back when you have found some sort of peer reviewd science which shows the mechanism in more detail than your word waving gibberish. You will need to convince somebody who understands words like entropy, energy, enthalpy, energy gradients and the like and is not at all intimidated by big words that you plainly have no clue about. Chaotic behaviour: Energy transfer in the atmosphere is governed very simple physics and has been modelled with some success over the last century- including Lorenz. Unfortunately every model failed to predict events from 5+ days and no matter how complicated the model became by introducing more factors they still failed. Lorenz himself noticed that when he re-ran models on different computers to speed up the process the outcomes not only varied but changed significantly in exactly the same way as the weather did. When applied to weather an insignificant local event can cause significant regional and even global events. Models now predict the influence of chaos. The total energy of the Earth changes again predictably and chaotically as numerous astronomical and geological cycles interact. What part plants and animals have is not fully understood neither is that of human activity except that it is could be one of the more rapid influences like volcanic releases, regional fire storms, asteroid impacts etc. Decreases and increases in energy levels will affect chaotic behaviour in any system including climate and weather patterns as evidence in the current Ice Age. The more energy (eg heat) there is in a system normally causes more chaos. More chaos leads to more chaotic weather. More chaotic weather leads to ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 More chaotic weather leads to ... More climate change denial: you cannot predict it so it can't possibly be true...[/Fe] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now