spoiling what exactly?
i personally engaged in several incidents of political dissidence as a teenager and the school was flummoxed what to do because me and my friend did pranks which cut to the bone and were distributed to every student and making a public statement would have drawn attention to the flaw in their system that we'd amply pointed out.
If the kid wasn't on school property, and wasn't in school uniform, then the suit definitely has a base.
People who can't take a joke or speech against their holy cows deserve whatever legal reprimand that can be brought to bear upon them imho.
I would just like to point out that a factor that has never been discussed as far as i know about the global warming business is that warming increases evaporation, and evaporated water stores more heat than non-evaporated. Therefore if there is an average observable rise of 1 degree of atmospheric temperatures, this means that there's probably another degree hidden in the increased atmospheric water (and as i've been repeating, hydrocarbon burning produces quite a lot of water by itself). It seems more likely to me that the heavy weather we are now seeing is a cyclic phenomenon which is being exacerbated by our increasing the atmospheric density and latent heat levels.
Is this going to cause massive global catastrophe? Well, probably, but these things happen, it's normal. What is at issue is that we humans, by not finding better ways to make energy than burning stores of hydrocarbons, are adding to this cyclic change and it may just be the straw that broke the camels back, so instead of having a massive volcanic/seismic/disease/war cataclysm, we might be just having a couple of centuries of hot weather, were we not doing this.
Can you say which way things would go were we not doing our bit to make it worse? Unfortunately not. However, it can be stated with great certainty that our contribution is adding to the problem.
Until scientists (or is it the owners of energy producing monopolies stopping this) find a direct route to capture gravitational energy at high efficiency, the human contribution to climate change will just get worse as our population increases. The way I see it, as Stephen Hawking astutely observed, we need to develop the capability to get off this big ol' rock and wander the stars. If we are not doing this, then we are no better than the dinosaurs and one way or another nature will slay us and have another go at producing an intelligent species.
yes, this point is worth noting - and to add to the error-prone measuring systems, changes in atmospheric and ocean density due to ice melts and increased atmospheric CO2 and H2O from hydrocarbon burning will be adding discrepancies to height measurements both upwards into the atmosphere and downwards into the ocean floor.
And if the atmosphere is becoming denser (this is probably one of the few reliably measurable things via the use of a refractometer), on average, then this is going to increased the amount of heat captured by the sun due to total internal reflection. The increased water levels and carbon dioxide levels are also going to increase the amount of latent heat in the atmosphere (which will not be observed by temperature measuring devices, unless they are calibrated against a refractometer).
It is my opinion that there simply is not enough factors in the models, the deforestation raises albedo reflection, the hydrocarbon burning increases atmospheric density via water and carbon dioxide emissions (and sulphur and nitrates also add their contribution to this problem)
Also, if my point about changing water density is relevant, even a radar/sonar method of measuring sea depth will be encountering an un-measured factor - that of the change of the wave speed of the measuring device, denser substances tend to transmit vibrations and radiation more slowly, and vice versa. If the level of saltiness of polar cap ocean water is dropping then this will be making the water less dense and thus will tend to make such measurements inaccurately large.
yeah i was thinking about centripetal force but i remembered vaguely that is the counter force to centrifugal.
the centripetal force in the phenomena with the water is simply water's surface tension which causes it to adhere strongly to most of the crust. This may be involved in the drop at the equator. As is the point made earlier in these comments about the increased temperature changing viscosity. Increased temperature also lowers vapour pressure which plays a part too. Surface tension will drop as temperature rises because the rate of vapour formation is also rising.
Increasing amounts of water overall will increase the weight of the planet because for one thing, the oxygen is being sucked out of the atmosphere at the same time, which is another point in favour of the idea that the atmosphere is shrinking. And secondary to this is that since this total scenario is leading to an increased amount of atoms stuck on the earth's surface, the planet is becoming heavier, which is thus creating greater pressure on the crust which naturally is going to lead to an increased pressure on the crust and thus increasing the distortion effect.
Also, how is this height change being measured? is it relative to air pressure as in the method used to detect altitude in aircraft? because this would also mean greater discrepancies in the measurements since, as is well known, evaporation globally is increasing and so is the water-addition to the atmosphere, if the atmosphere is shrinking in height and increasing in density this will have a subtle but important effect on altitude measurements. This increasing density will also most likely create a differential of the weight of the atmosphere which will affect the depth of the ocean at the poles vs at the equator. Centrifugal force also will be affecting the polar atmosphere density, possibly making it denser because there is very little centrifugal force at the poles where the spin is least.
The thing about water density and ice is also worth mentioning. One thing that struck me very early on about the subject of global warming is that melting polar ice caps does not mean a rise in water levels unless the ice is coming off above-sea-level ice. At this point more of the ice melt is from floating ice and floating ice does not make water levels go up *or* down, I don't know why I have never bothered to actually measure this effect, but my intuition tells me that melting ice that was previously displacing water will not raise or lower the water level.
However, increased emissions of water into the atmosphere is surely going to add water to the ocean.
The point about water's viscosity is important too, since the polar ice and atmospheric conditions cause the water to be a lot colder (and salty water can go below zero C without solidifying) this is again going to change density, as is the fact that the melting water is pure water and thus is also lowering the density of the water.
I know i haven't got my model exactly clear but these are all factors missing from the conventional global warming/water levels models.
I apologise if I am repeating something someone else said in the 200+ comments on this post, but here goes anyway.
Some of you may be aware that the earth is in a constant axial spin about the poles. This spin naturally has caused the entire planet to become a squashed ball shape rather than a perfect sphere. Sea levels rising will therefore affect the equator the most and the poles - well, as this new data suggests, will have the opposite effect. This is because the mobile water content of the surface is becoming heavier and thus more prone to the axial distrotion.
And while I'm commenting on the subject, I would just like to put forward an idea i had last year relating to this topic - the chemists amongst us may be aware that when hydrocarbons burn they form roughly equal amounts of water as carbon dioxide. Specifically, natural gas (methane) is:
CH4 + 2O2 --> 2H2O + CO2
This means natural gas is producing twice as much water vapour as carbon dioxide. The longer the hydrocarbon chain the closer the ratio approaches 1:1.
When I was thinking about these things it occurred to me that there has been little attention in climate change science to the effect of this added atmospheric water. Another factor which is related to this is that the ionosphere has been found to be dropping downward towards the earth. Both carbon dioxide and water are heavier-than-air, and this is because they are denser, thus causing a shrinking of the atmosphere.
Much of that water coming out the tailpipes of cars is ending up in the ocean. The overall effect of this increasing atmospheric density is manifold and the effects depend on the degree of local production of these emissions. One key effect is that it is increasing the refractive index of the atmosphere, which is increasing the amount of captured light, especially around the poles because they maintain a relatively constant orientation towards the sun.
When my mind started wandering down this path of speculation I became quite convinced that the rate of change has been dramatically underestimated because even if you just count this extra factor of increased atmospheric water a whole mountain of other effects appear.
Slashdot Mirror
spoiling what exactly? i personally engaged in several incidents of political dissidence as a teenager and the school was flummoxed what to do because me and my friend did pranks which cut to the bone and were distributed to every student and making a public statement would have drawn attention to the flaw in their system that we'd amply pointed out. If the kid wasn't on school property, and wasn't in school uniform, then the suit definitely has a base. People who can't take a joke or speech against their holy cows deserve whatever legal reprimand that can be brought to bear upon them imho.
I would just like to point out that a factor that has never been discussed as far as i know about the global warming business is that warming increases evaporation, and evaporated water stores more heat than non-evaporated. Therefore if there is an average observable rise of 1 degree of atmospheric temperatures, this means that there's probably another degree hidden in the increased atmospheric water (and as i've been repeating, hydrocarbon burning produces quite a lot of water by itself). It seems more likely to me that the heavy weather we are now seeing is a cyclic phenomenon which is being exacerbated by our increasing the atmospheric density and latent heat levels.
Is this going to cause massive global catastrophe? Well, probably, but these things happen, it's normal. What is at issue is that we humans, by not finding better ways to make energy than burning stores of hydrocarbons, are adding to this cyclic change and it may just be the straw that broke the camels back, so instead of having a massive volcanic/seismic/disease/war cataclysm, we might be just having a couple of centuries of hot weather, were we not doing this.
Can you say which way things would go were we not doing our bit to make it worse? Unfortunately not. However, it can be stated with great certainty that our contribution is adding to the problem.
Until scientists (or is it the owners of energy producing monopolies stopping this) find a direct route to capture gravitational energy at high efficiency, the human contribution to climate change will just get worse as our population increases. The way I see it, as Stephen Hawking astutely observed, we need to develop the capability to get off this big ol' rock and wander the stars. If we are not doing this, then we are no better than the dinosaurs and one way or another nature will slay us and have another go at producing an intelligent species.
yes, that's because you froze the whole body of water inside a confined space
yes, this point is worth noting - and to add to the error-prone measuring systems, changes in atmospheric and ocean density due to ice melts and increased atmospheric CO2 and H2O from hydrocarbon burning will be adding discrepancies to height measurements both upwards into the atmosphere and downwards into the ocean floor.
And if the atmosphere is becoming denser (this is probably one of the few reliably measurable things via the use of a refractometer), on average, then this is going to increased the amount of heat captured by the sun due to total internal reflection. The increased water levels and carbon dioxide levels are also going to increase the amount of latent heat in the atmosphere (which will not be observed by temperature measuring devices, unless they are calibrated against a refractometer).
It is my opinion that there simply is not enough factors in the models, the deforestation raises albedo reflection, the hydrocarbon burning increases atmospheric density via water and carbon dioxide emissions (and sulphur and nitrates also add their contribution to this problem)
Also, if my point about changing water density is relevant, even a radar/sonar method of measuring sea depth will be encountering an un-measured factor - that of the change of the wave speed of the measuring device, denser substances tend to transmit vibrations and radiation more slowly, and vice versa. If the level of saltiness of polar cap ocean water is dropping then this will be making the water less dense and thus will tend to make such measurements inaccurately large.
yeah i was thinking about centripetal force but i remembered vaguely that is the counter force to centrifugal. the centripetal force in the phenomena with the water is simply water's surface tension which causes it to adhere strongly to most of the crust. This may be involved in the drop at the equator. As is the point made earlier in these comments about the increased temperature changing viscosity. Increased temperature also lowers vapour pressure which plays a part too. Surface tension will drop as temperature rises because the rate of vapour formation is also rising. Increasing amounts of water overall will increase the weight of the planet because for one thing, the oxygen is being sucked out of the atmosphere at the same time, which is another point in favour of the idea that the atmosphere is shrinking. And secondary to this is that since this total scenario is leading to an increased amount of atoms stuck on the earth's surface, the planet is becoming heavier, which is thus creating greater pressure on the crust which naturally is going to lead to an increased pressure on the crust and thus increasing the distortion effect. Also, how is this height change being measured? is it relative to air pressure as in the method used to detect altitude in aircraft? because this would also mean greater discrepancies in the measurements since, as is well known, evaporation globally is increasing and so is the water-addition to the atmosphere, if the atmosphere is shrinking in height and increasing in density this will have a subtle but important effect on altitude measurements. This increasing density will also most likely create a differential of the weight of the atmosphere which will affect the depth of the ocean at the poles vs at the equator. Centrifugal force also will be affecting the polar atmosphere density, possibly making it denser because there is very little centrifugal force at the poles where the spin is least. The thing about water density and ice is also worth mentioning. One thing that struck me very early on about the subject of global warming is that melting polar ice caps does not mean a rise in water levels unless the ice is coming off above-sea-level ice. At this point more of the ice melt is from floating ice and floating ice does not make water levels go up *or* down, I don't know why I have never bothered to actually measure this effect, but my intuition tells me that melting ice that was previously displacing water will not raise or lower the water level. However, increased emissions of water into the atmosphere is surely going to add water to the ocean. The point about water's viscosity is important too, since the polar ice and atmospheric conditions cause the water to be a lot colder (and salty water can go below zero C without solidifying) this is again going to change density, as is the fact that the melting water is pure water and thus is also lowering the density of the water. I know i haven't got my model exactly clear but these are all factors missing from the conventional global warming/water levels models.
I apologise if I am repeating something someone else said in the 200+ comments on this post, but here goes anyway. Some of you may be aware that the earth is in a constant axial spin about the poles. This spin naturally has caused the entire planet to become a squashed ball shape rather than a perfect sphere. Sea levels rising will therefore affect the equator the most and the poles - well, as this new data suggests, will have the opposite effect. This is because the mobile water content of the surface is becoming heavier and thus more prone to the axial distrotion. And while I'm commenting on the subject, I would just like to put forward an idea i had last year relating to this topic - the chemists amongst us may be aware that when hydrocarbons burn they form roughly equal amounts of water as carbon dioxide. Specifically, natural gas (methane) is: CH4 + 2O2 --> 2H2O + CO2 This means natural gas is producing twice as much water vapour as carbon dioxide. The longer the hydrocarbon chain the closer the ratio approaches 1:1. When I was thinking about these things it occurred to me that there has been little attention in climate change science to the effect of this added atmospheric water. Another factor which is related to this is that the ionosphere has been found to be dropping downward towards the earth. Both carbon dioxide and water are heavier-than-air, and this is because they are denser, thus causing a shrinking of the atmosphere. Much of that water coming out the tailpipes of cars is ending up in the ocean. The overall effect of this increasing atmospheric density is manifold and the effects depend on the degree of local production of these emissions. One key effect is that it is increasing the refractive index of the atmosphere, which is increasing the amount of captured light, especially around the poles because they maintain a relatively constant orientation towards the sun. When my mind started wandering down this path of speculation I became quite convinced that the rate of change has been dramatically underestimated because even if you just count this extra factor of increased atmospheric water a whole mountain of other effects appear.