[Petrochemicals (OP)]

In light of nasa launching its glacier measurement device, I am brought to the conclusion that they should be measuring the atmosphere thickness, due to the ever so slight increace in energy in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel usage.

The theory of why we have experienced glaciation events after global economic slowdown is this,

Increaced energy in the atmosphere due to almost all the energy from fossil fuels used relates to increaced volume in the atmosphere in the long run, rather than pressure or temperature that is seen in initial injection of energy into the atmosphere. In one gas law or the other though, increased energy in the atmosphere has led to increaced water evapouration.

This higher energy and water content in the atmosphere and its increaced volume , due to a lack of energy to sustain  an increaced atmospheric volume ,when the cycle is cut leads to the precipitation of supercooled out of the atmosphere as ice. This is at a drop in extra energy of 5% of the total energy usage that was enough to trigger an icification event.

As the drop in energy use of 5% of 15000 million barrels of oil equivelant (hereafter mboe) in the year 2009 after the  2008 crash, was sustained for only that one year and in the following years of 20010 onwards energy usage went up, the glaciation of the surface was initially in the years 2009 and 20010 caused by an energy use drop, but in the years 20011 20012 etc i believe that the glaciation was caused by there being less energy absorbed from the sun by the ground because of the prior years glaciation, leading to there being less energy in the atmosphere directly because of the reflective properties of ice.

That even though we put over 5% more energy into the atmosphere than  was used in 2009 in the years following 2009, this was not enought to stop glaciation of a similar level in 20010 that was seen in 2009. It is hypothesised that the effect of the glaciation is equivilent to a 10% drop in energy usage.

That if energy usage dropped 5% year on year with a glaciation event,  this could mean a snowball effect of 15% less energy in the atmosphere per year leading to severe runaway glaciation, and possibly an ice age.

The world has only 900,000mboe in reserve in fossil fuels and is currently using 15000mboe per year meaning at a rate of 15000mboe a year the fossil fuels will run out in 60 years, and the world energy use is increacing per year so fossil fuels will run out in less than 60 years.

That if we dropped energy use today by 2% of usage ammount, it would take 50 years to eradicate fossil fuel usage, this may be too quick to allow the climate to readjust without a runaway snowball effect of glaciation. Nuclear power may be needed to allow the climate time to cool.

Renewables offer only a neutral energy option. They take as much energy from the atmosphere as they return.

That the turbulent stormy wet weather experienced in winters 2015 and around the time, was due to the climate equalising and the atmosphere expanding once more. As the energy use increaced the water content of the atmosphere was trapped in an evaporation precipitation cycle transporting energy to the higher atmosphere, leading to more   turbulance. This has since evened out.


Edit. More evidence from filadelfia, although i do not know if the snow was lying on the ground. Half of there most snowy winters line up with the energy theory, some are the tail end of the 1800, of a , some are. 76 79 2008 etc, and the anomolous 1960 winter . No end of ww2 fall though. From about 1930 onwards there is a 5 to 3 ratio lining up with the dateline, which is pretty unlikely.

http://www.stevenmoskowitz24.com/snow_in_philadelphia/seasonalSnow.html

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Is it just me or is it becoming colder as of february 2020. Strange considering that it is nearly spring now. The oceans have cooled , the solar low has long gone in the nortern hemisphere.  We had a very warm winter, yet come a few weeks after chinese new year and  the shutdown over corona virus and the world is "Miraculously" cooling. Shipping is stalled, factories shut down, oil demand at new lows.

 Still this is not definitive but its one to watch over the next few months. The oceans could have cooled their maximum so theres not much energy around so a bit of bad weather impacts more. Plus the fact sustained rainfall has cooled the land so late winters could be a factor of global warming.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Ok so it warmed up after february, but the summer was poor, all following the patterns of sudden atmospheric volatility and instability brought about by contracting gasses. SNOWY WINTER TO FOLLOW

Usa

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-braun/column-crop-watch-yield-potential-hangs-on-despite-widespread-rain-needs-idUKKCN2570RO

Europe north

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53921121

Europe central had a better time of it.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/reduced-yield-outlook-summer-crops-due-dry-conditions

But all in all  not a good year (just like Donald Trump {topical reference to his spat with the tyre company august 2020}.)

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Sea ice is also bucking the trend despite the raging summers of the arctic siberia europe and the Usa, whom would have tought it. Sounds like a return of......



The super hero that saves fanatical leftwing liberal fascists from the facts so they can continue pseudo science persecution at their leisure and supress the reality that is blowing (probably with snow come winter) directly infront of their face. # world famine

[Bored chemist]

Is it just me or is it becoming colder as of february 2020.

It's just you.
In reality, February was warm.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/winter-and-february-2020-end-second-warmest-record-globe

The super hero that saves fanatical leftwing liberal fascists from the facts so they can continue pseudo science persecution at their leisure and supress the reality that is blowing (probably with snow come winter) directly infront of their face. # world famine

You seem to be muddling the two sides in this debate.
Practically all the actual scientists are saying anthropogenic global warming is real.
On the other hand, you think warm is  cold .

[Kryptid]

Sea ice is also bucking the trend despite the raging summers of the arctic siberia europe and the Usa

If you have data showing that the average rate of global ice loss has not changed significantly in the past few decades, I'd be interested in seeing it.

fanatical leftwing liberal fascists

Do you really think those are the only people who accept the reality of global warming? I, for one, have never understood the supposed political dichotomy on global warming. Why should one's political or economic leanings have any impact on whether they accept that the planet is warming or not?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 15:24:42 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Yes bc, I understand what your saying, but you have said such before and it really has no more bearing this time since the last.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Sea ice is also bucking the trend despite the raging summers of the arctic siberia europe and the Usa

If you have data showing that the average rate of global ice loss has not changed significantly in the past few decades, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Sorry kryptid forgot the link, https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover

fanatical leftwing liberal fascists

Do you really think those are the only people who accept the reality of global warming? I, for one, have never understood the supposed political dichotomy on global warming. Why should one's political or economic leanings have any impact on whether they accept that the planet is warming or not?

[/quote]
No, I think that they think that they understand global warming and have a hairspring trigger to anyone who displays an inconvenient truth or a snowflake in june. 

[Kryptid]

Sorry kryptid forgot the link, https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover

Looking at the first images about Arctic ice coverage, it most certainly shows a trend towards less sea ice as the years roll from 1979 to 2020. The Antarctic ice coverage data is more ambiguous, but the fact that Antarctica is literally a continent, I wouldn't expect it to react as quickly to warming weather as the Arctic.

[puppypower]

Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.

If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small)  to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun (and all the earths varying orbit cycles) and thus altering the climate.

If a plane takes off from the surface of the earth when it is facing the sun, the earth is forced away from the sun. Said plane thrusts against the earth via the airduring the hours of daylight. When the plane lands the earth and plane once more move closer together, but the plane is now in darkness and once more the earth is moved further away from the sun and is left permanently more distant from the star. Similar activities powered by mass energy usage include vehicles moving across the surface.The flaw in this theory is that the earth should be getting colder, but i wonder whether i have the physics wrong and this activity is acting as a gravitational source that moves the earth closer.

Also if the result of burning hydrocarbons is water and co2 is the sea level rise down to increased liquid in the oceans ? and i do not mean via the exon valdez.

The science data can show that the earth has gone through many cycles of climate change over its long history. This data is undeniable and accepted by science. The premise of man made climate change for the earth, is new. Because it is new to the earth, is has no precedent in terms o of the long term earth data. If we assume this premise was true, it would be the first time in the history of the earth. Therefore, the manmade premise has only one possible data point; one single connected event in earth history.

The problem is, to draw a straight line you need two data points. If the Romans did this before we would have a second point. This is not the case. If we had three or more data points we can draw a curve. We can draw a curve with the natural earth data since we have dozens of good data points. However, If you try to draw a curve with one data point; one unique event in earth history, you have to guess at the slope of the line.  This is where science starts to break down and politics and opinion have a voice in science. 

We appear to have not yet defined the correct slope. Shouldn't we be under water by now based on previous slope assumptions? Why do the models predict too high of a temperature rise, if the slope was correct? One data point is a crap shoot for drawing curves.

As I have discussed elsewhere, science is not self sufficient when it comes to resources. It is beholden to government, industry and private donations. These money givers have an impact on how the money will be spent, via their expectations in terms of results. With a one data point phenomena, we need to be careful about politics and opinion setting the expectations for resource allocation and usage. This is why even though earth data has enough data points to draw a nice curve, this solid curve needs to be ignored in favor of the one data point. What is being cancelled is a  science curve in favor of one data point with a slope on demand.

 

[Bored chemist]

Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 15:24:42 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Yes bc, I understand what your saying, but you have said such becore and it really has no more bearing this time since the last.

So, you think that me pointing out that you are - based on actual facts- unable to understand the issue, has no bearing on it.
Well, that's one viewpoint.
But since you say you are happy to carry on being wrong, I don't think there's much that anyone else can do.
Restating the fact that you are deliberately ignoring people who tell you the truth doesn't make you look big or clever.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #130 on: Today at 12:54:03 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth, but again, it seems to be a repetition of posts as is your habit. At least its not back sniping or a "Trump", being so wildy off subjet in the face of the evidence to just flummox the poor people.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The science data can show that the earth has gone through many cycles of climate change over its long history. This data is undeniable and accepted by science. The premise of man made climate change for the earth, is new. Because it is new to the earth, is has no precedent in terms o of the long term earth data. If we assume this premise was true, it would be the first time in the history of the earth. Therefore, the manmade premise has only one possible data point; one single connected event in earth history.

The problem is, to draw a straight line you need two data points. If the Romans did this before we would have a second point. This is not the case. If we had three or more data points we can draw a curve. We can draw a curve with the natural earth data since we have dozens of good data points. However, If you try to draw a curve with one data point; one unique event in earth history, you have to guess at the slope of the line.  This is where science starts to break down and politics and opinion have a voice in science. 

The roman times climate was indeed warmer, one thing that was hypothesised was that climate change over a long period was responsible for Romes fall.

But in the case of vesuvius, climate change was sudden, this brought about the summer without a summer, if 2 large eruptions happened in consecutive years, how well do you think the crops should grow how much ice would build up how much heat would be returned to space ?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Sorry kryptid forgot the link, https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover

Looking at the first images about Arctic ice coverage, it most certainly shows a trend towards less sea ice as the years roll from 1979 to 2020. The Antarctic ice coverage data is more ambiguous, but the fact that Antarctica is literally a continent, I wouldn't expect it to react as quickly to warming weather as the Arctic.

To be honest Kryptid, from what ive read more sea ice is a bad thing in Antarctica, faster flowing glaciers as a result of heating lead to more sea ice and thinner glaciers. But like you state  about the south pole, the cycles in the artic regions do take longer to build up than 4 seasons.

[Bored chemist]

Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth,

There's no actual evidence to support that view of yours,  is there?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #134 on: Yesterday at 16:20:44 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

it lookslike you are slipping into your old habbits of repeatedly posting the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.  Mind you it is a remarked improvement on the spammytroll like garbage you used to come out with. I suppose i should be thankful.

[evan_au]

A recent inquiry into the severe bushfires in Australia last summer made a series of recommendations.
- The government in my state (NSW) stated that they would implement all of the recommendations
- One of the findings was that human-induced climate change was a significant factor in the severity of these bushfires, and the future frequency and severity of bushfires in Australia.
- I wonder if this finding will translate into government policy changes?

[evan_au]

The recent severe hurricane Laura which struck Louisiana and Texas was reported to be the second most-rapidly strengthening storm in recorded history, moving from Category 1 to Category 5 in just 1 day.
- The cause was water in the Gulf of Mexico which was just 1 or 2 degrees warmer than average (that is degrees Fahrenheit).

For those who say that 1 or 2 degrees change (degrees Celsius) will have no impact on them - well, their air-conditioning no longer works since the storm blew the roof off their house and knocked down the power lines...

[Bored chemist]

it lookslike you are slipping into your old habbits of repeatedly posting the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:20:44
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #134 on: Yesterday at 16:20:44 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:54:03

Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #130 on: Today at 12:54:03 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/08/2020 15:24:42

Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 15:24:42 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

It's not funny, you know.

[Bored chemist]

Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth,

There's no actual evidence to support that view of yours,  is there?

I presume you didn't address that because you accept that it is true.