Author Topic: General Climate Discussion  (Read 105243 times)

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #180 on: October 30, 2007, 10:08:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, at one time the glacial ice cape covered half of north america, yeah it's a bad thing it receded.

warm is good. cold is bad.



No, sir.  Warm and WET is good.  (see Brazil....Congo..)(shrinking)

Warm and DRY.....BAD! (see Sub Saharan Africa...Australian outback)  (growing)
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #181 on: October 31, 2007, 05:38:00 AM »
Has anyone here heard of the temperate belts of the globe, being split up in cool-temperate and warm-temperate, which then get subcategorized into continental and oceanic climates within the temperate frame?
(Moray, I know you know)

Anyway, MOVING those northwards and southwards will only give you any proper landmass as temperate in the former USSR and Canada, - both cool and up to permafrost.
The permafrost will start off as a rotting bog or swamp with rapidly changing vegetation.
On latitudes nearer to the middle, you will see increased heats eventually, and where land is barren it might go the desert way. The belt would then move both north and south.

So, a slight warming may be good for the northern territories. It won't be good much above that.

And at one point, there is bound to be a change of entire weathersystems as well as ocean currents. There you're talking big stuff.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #182 on: October 31, 2007, 08:09:10 AM »
ah..so you do admit that the sun affects the other planets.. the closer ones more.   I don't think we fully understand the suns activity.. certainly not any more than we understand co2 affects..  yet..  the alarmists seem to be willing to dismiss the suns activity.. they seem willing to dismiss all activity that is not co2 or man related.

the reset button will be hit again and there isn't a thing we can do about it.  we will have new ice ages again and there is not a thing we can do about it... volcanoes will erupt.. the sea floor will spread... oil will bubble out of the sea and the axis and core will shift... not a thing we can do about it.   sooo... in our pitiful little screechings and arrogance.. we blame the co2 we are adding saying not only that man can cause significant global warming but...  as temps cool or don't go as predicted (they don't even predict anymore) we now say man causes "global climate change"

So why was the planet so hot before the reset anyway?  all the cars the dinos were driving?   all the co2 they were making?   nooo... the co2 was released because the planet was hot.. the suns activity was high.. the core was in a different state.. all kinds of natural events and the co2 was just along for the ride.. and the animals and plants did fine at that co2 level anyway.

yeah... that's the ticket!  global climate change... no matter what happens then it can be "see... climate changed... mans fault"

lazs
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 08:11:40 AM by lazs2 »

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #183 on: October 31, 2007, 09:31:24 AM »
Of course the sun affects planets!. However that is not the full explanation behind it being warmer in the house than outside now is it.
Nor on Venus, which is farther from the sun than Mercury, and yet warmer :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #184 on: October 31, 2007, 09:32:52 AM »
And as for C (as well as CO2), - where do you think it comes from? Your car? Just a minute, are we dealing with a Lazs that does not have a clue of chemistry?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13432
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #185 on: October 31, 2007, 03:07:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MORAY37
No, sir.  Warm and WET is good.  (see Brazil....Congo..)(shrinking)

Warm and DRY.....BAD! (see Sub Saharan Africa...Australian outback)  (growing)


Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Might'n that compensate for a rising sea level and carry more moisture from the sea to land? Lots of variables in the earth's climate.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #186 on: October 31, 2007, 03:17:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
ah..so you do admit that the sun affects the other planets.. the closer ones more.    


I love oversimplification as a means of declaring intellectual victory. Ahem. ;)

Offline Trell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #187 on: October 31, 2007, 03:49:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shamus
I'm looking forward to 70-80's year long up here in Michigan, we shall be dancing in the streets, cuz we got water:)

Now those Florida folk sweltering in 100 degree minimums will not cry about it i'm sure.

shamus


If it keeps up in Georgia there will not be anyone left in that state.  They sound like they are almost out of fresh water.

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #188 on: October 31, 2007, 04:10:48 PM »
Well, with home heating oil closing in on three bucks a gallon, I hope it stays warm til January
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #189 on: October 31, 2007, 05:52:07 PM »
global warming will destroy the big oil companies, who will buy heating oil when it's 80 degrees in Milwaukee in feb.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #190 on: October 31, 2007, 05:57:42 PM »
Firstly, you still need energy for just about anything else. Cooling also needs energy BTW.
Secondly, there are many more places on the planet than Milwaukee.
Thirdly, many of the corporate money-maker's don't care squat about what happens in 20-30 years. So do some on this forum. Make it 50-70 years if you like.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #191 on: October 31, 2007, 06:03:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Might'n that compensate for a rising sea level and carry more moisture from the sea to land? Lots of variables in the earth's climate.



Moisture, - like the air on the N-African coasts?

A tip here, - the weight of the atmosphere at sl is equal to 760 mm hg. That is actually the weight of 76 cm x the mass of Hg of water, - if you see what I mean. The atmosphere does not weight much in relation of what we have of sea.

And then the final thing. Water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13432
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #192 on: October 31, 2007, 08:40:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Moisture, - like the air on the N-African coasts?

A tip here, - the weight of the atmosphere at sl is equal to 760 mm hg. That is actually the weight of 76 cm x the mass of Hg of water, - if you see what I mean. The atmosphere does not weight much in relation of what we have of sea.

And then the final thing. Water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas.


Well, I was answering his comment about warm "dry" land more than anything. Clouds are also reflective and it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #193 on: October 31, 2007, 08:48:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, I was answering his comment about warm "dry" land more than anything. Clouds are also reflective and it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds.


I wouldn't rush to that conclusion if I were you. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13432
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #194 on: October 31, 2007, 08:52:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Arlo
I wouldn't rush to that conclusion if I were you. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming


If I did anything it wasn't rushing to a conclusion except that clouds do in fact reflect at least some of the sun's energy.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.