A simple analysis to quickly settle the AGW climate change debate
There was yet another story in the news about global warming and climate change and CO2. Doesn't matter which one--that and a holiday break motivated me to finally get this analysis of the physics and facts down in writing. The simple and quick analysis turned into a 3,300 word article, but I share it with you for your honest consideration and objective reaction. Thanks for reading and for any comments!
My article here: http://bit.ly/1YzQnFy
My article here: http://bit.ly/1YzQnFy
http://amzn.to/1RLHa8c. It has several updates, improvements, and elaborations on key points and arguments.
And if you are on Facebook, there is a page for the book there too. I greatly appreciate you going here and "liking" the page, and sharing it if you are so bold: https://www.facebook.com/climatechang...
The essay and effort is no longer associated with me...you'll see it with someone else now. But still wanted to share the update and opportunity to spread the message. Thanks to everyone here for the very positive and highly engaged reactions! It was a major factor in the later efforts.
http://www.theonion.com/article/epa-u...
Water occupies a certain volume when frozen 9% rises above the surface level and 91% occupies the original space or volume under neath.
Ice coming into the ocean from land affects the oceans water surface level with it's total volume one way or another. So melting glaciers is now a big deal... the projected amount if it all melted seems to hover around 2-3 meters or at the most about ten feet.
Depending on tides that could mean the current high tide would be ten feet higher and the low tide ten feet higher at least in a holly wood thriller.
One other factor is the difference between fresh water coming from land and salt water already in the ocean. The volume is different.
So the worst that would happen is high tide would be ten feet higher than at present. Which would put a lot of shoreline, beaches, and a few docks under water...at high tide.
The next question is how much of that 'new' water would be held captive in the atmosphere as part of the normal weather cycle given that the temperature of the atmosphere having presumably risen was capturing more for it's approx. nine day stay aloft.
Reverse that to what happens if all the atmosphere captive water was dumped into the oceans and on land leaving nothing aloft.
My imagination says a complete collapse of the weather cycle would have to occur since any complete absence would cause warming which would replenish the supply until some optimum balance had occurred.
In any case the atmosphere would mollify to some extent the fall or rise in surface levels as would absorption into the land. Replacing the Ogalalla Aquifer would modify the final totals.
Some points to ponder....
Another thing they don't know how to model is the heat flow from the earths core. All seem to agree the core is very hot and heat energy should be flowing to the cooler surface and atmosphere. But since there is no accepted explaination for the source of energy heating the core, it's magnitude, or how it might be changing they just leave it out of their models. Which I am sure I do not need to point out have a terrible record of predicting global warming. They seem to claim that we should believe them just because some smart people have worked hard on them and spent a lot of money. It seems to not be important that they don't work and ignore several factors which seem like they could be very important.
Don
That is not what happens. The AGW modelers claim more of the suns energy is passing through the atmosphere hitting the Earth and less of the Earths radiated energy is passing out back into space.
That difference in energy needs to overcome the heat capacity of the whole planet for its temperature to change. As you said the water and the rest of the planet has a tremendous total heat capacity. And, thus temperature can only change very slowly.
Don
For some interesting reading try researching the impact of heat coming from the Earths core. No one seems to doubt that the core is very hot, but there is no agreement on why. Where does all that heat come from? The best scientific answer seems to be, some sort or nuclear reaction, but what controls it and how long will it go on? And how much of that heat reaches the crust. Just maybe the Earths temperature is not only a function of energy from the sun, but also a function of the energy being released from it's core.
If you haven't read this don't say a word about CO2 ocean temperatures or any of that.
I'm offering no opinion just a source of information.
all the answers and then some...... for the umpteenth time...
Load more comments...