Gulf Stream

[Aufan59 62]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, I never said I am obligated to help with every problem our species faces.

Sure you did (bold emphasis mine):

 

On 3/18/2024 at 2:47 PM, homersapien said:

On 3/17/2024 at 6:41 PM, Aufan59 said:

You avoided all of my questions.

Where does the moral obligation end?  Are you morally obligated to spend your time, money and energy on every problem our species faces?  

Also, do you have children?  
 

 

It doesn't.

Yes.

No.

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, what's your interpretation of "considerable"?

In context, large, extensive….., and that is good. Just sounds like something Trump would say.

[homersapien 11,373]

46 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

In context, large, extensive….., and that is good. Just sounds like something Trump would say.

No, Trump would have thrown out a number. 

And the key word in your response is "context".  My context is my - and my families - financial history. No doubt Trump would consider my net worth as "pocket money".

 

Edited March 25 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

It’s just common sense:

 

There are too many issues involved in getting rid of fossil fuels.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

People in power are finally speaking out.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

This is a leader that is looking out for his people:

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

Well I see the crazies have hi-jacked this thread.

Meanwhile, (emphasis mine):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/04/04/atlantic-hurricane-season-forecast/

An “extremely active” Atlantic hurricane season is likely this year, a key preseason forecast warns, with chances for long-lived and intense storms fueled by record ocean warmth and atmospheric patterns known for boosting tropical cyclones.

Hurricane researchers from Colorado State University are predicting that nearly two dozen named tropical storms will form, including 11 hurricanes, during the season that officially begins June 1. Accumulated cyclone energy, a measure that accounts for storms’ frequency and longevity, could rise nearly twice as high as normal, to a forecast 170 percent of average by the season’s end Nov. 30.

The forecast released Thursday is the latest indication that a surge in global heat over the past year, far beyond the gradual warming observed across recent decades, could translate to greater extreme weather risks.

The predictions are so aggressive, they would mean the Atlantic basin could exhaust a list of 21 storm names for a second time in four years, and the third time since 2005. After that, meteorologists would start using a list of supplemental storm names the World Meteorological Association adopted in 2021, replacing a practice of using Greek letters.

The researchers said their hurricane season forecast comes with more confidence than usual, and it includes the highest predictions the team has made in 40 years of producing these outlooks. Although hurricane season predictions aren’t rock-solid at this time of year, sea surface temperatures are so extreme across the Atlantic basin that stormy conditions appear all but assured.

“It would take something pretty crazy for the Atlantic to not be substantially warmer than normal for the peak of the season,” which typically occurs in August and September, said Colorado State University hurricane researcher Philip Klotzbach, the forecast’s lead author. “The signal certainly points quite strongly toward a busy season this year.”

A trend toward a stormier Atlantic

The forecast far outpaces historical averages, but it is in line with several recent hurricane seasons.

In a typical year, about 14 tropical cyclones organize and strengthen enough to become named tropical storms — swirling systems organized around a low-pressure center and with maximum sustained winds of at least 39 mph. About half become hurricanes, on average, with maximum sustained winds of at least 74 mph.

Three of the storms become major hurricanes, on average, with winds of at least 111 mph. This year, the Colorado State researchers predict five major Atlantic hurricanes.

There have been at least 20 named storms in three of the past four seasons, including in 2020 when a record 30 storms got names, nine of them carrying the names of Greek alphabet letters.

Whether tropical cyclones are becoming more frequent isn’t scientifically settled, but there is evidence to suggest that is one consequence of global warming. Research has also shown intense cyclones are forming earlier during hurricane season than they did in the past.

‘Very concerning’ conditions in place

This year, there are two main factors driving expectations of a busy season: Historic warmth across Atlantic surface waters, and an assumption that a La Niña global climate pattern will develop by the hurricane season’s peak in late summer and early fall. Warmth provides more energy for storms to unleash, and La Niña tends to promote atmospheric wind patterns that are conducive to storms’ development.

Record ocean warmth made for an active 2023 hurricane season, with 20 named storms, despite the presence of El Niño, the opposite of La Niña and typically a hindrance to Atlantic cyclone development. While El Niño encourages wind shear in the Atlantic basin — changes in wind speeds and direction at different altitudes — La Niña discourages it, providing an environment for cyclones to develop tall clouds and intense low-pressure centers.

As April begins, the tropical Atlantic is as warm as it would normally be at the start of July.

That means the heat that will drive storm activity could already be all but locked in. If Atlantic temperatures surpass 2023 levels, “that’s very concerning,” said José Javier Hernández Ayala, an associate professor focusing on climatology at Sonoma State University in California.

“We don’t know if these [ocean temperature] trends are going to continue,” he said. “If they do, that’s definitely going to be fueling more activity.”

That said, “having warm water does not guarantee hurricanes,” said Kim Wood, an associate professor of hydrology and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. Storm activity will also depend on the African monsoon season, which can send atmospheric disturbances into the Atlantic that serve as “seeds” for tropical cyclones, they said.

Heightened coastal risks

 

Florida's Fisher Island, foreground, along with Miami Beach sit next to the Atlantic Ocean. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

While seasonal forecasting does not allow meteorologists to predict where storms might go, the conditions expected across the Atlantic raise the odds for landfalling storms in the United States.

The researchers estimate a 62 percent chance that a major hurricane will make landfall somewhere in the continental United States, compared to a 43 percent chance in an average year.

And they estimate a greater than 1-in-3 chance of a major hurricane landfall somewhere on the East Coast, an area where the average chances are about 1 in 5. If La Niña forms as expected, that would raise the risks of storms forming off Africa and sweeping across the Atlantic basin and up the East Coast, Colorado State’s Klotzbach said.

“Your odds of landfall from Florida to Maine go up quite a bit when you have La Niña, because it favors those long-track storms,” he said.

Exceptionally warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, which have helped drive a growing number of storms to rapidly intensify into major hurricanes in recent years, will likely mean especially high storm risks for islands, including Puerto Rico, Central American countries and the U.S. Gulf Coast, said Hernández Ayala of Sonoma State University.

The conditions are prompting calls to prepare for potentially violent storms. AccuWeather last month warned its audiences that an “explosive” hurricane season could be ahead, predicting 20 to 25 named tropical storms and eight to 12 hurricanes, including as many as seven major hurricanes. The National Hurricane Center is expected to issue its season forecast in May.

Klotzbach said there is still time for conditions to change in ways that could impact storm risks. While forecasters have dramatically improved their skills at predicting hurricane activity so many months out, there is still more uncertainty in April than there will be in June or August.

“It’s a forecast, not a guarantee,” Klotzbach said.

Edited April 4 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/CryoSat/Arctic_sea_ice_up_from_record_low

Arctic sea ice up from record low

".....While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend.

“It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study....."

[homersapien 11,373]

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/?intent=121

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Extent

Key Takeaway:

Summer Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking by 12.2% per decade due to warmer temperatures.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

 

The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Table 2.14 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) show the increase in warming by methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) is 21 and 310 times respectively that of CO2. There has been wide acceptance of these values since publishing in 2007. Nevertheless, they are inaccurate. This study uses accurate methods to calculate the impacts of CO2, CH4, and N2O on the warming of the atmosphere. For example, this quantitative analysis from reliable physics shows the contribution of CO2 to warming at Amsterdam is 0.0083oC out of a difference of 26oC. The warming effect of CH4 on the Earth’s atmosphere is 0.408% of that of CO2, and the warming by N2O is 0.085% of that of CO2. Thus, the warming effects of CO2, CH4, and N2O are too small to measure. The invalidity of the methane and nitrous oxide values indicates the GWPs of the remaining approximately sixty chemicals in the Table 2.14 list are also invalid. A recommendation is that the IPCC consider revising or retracting the GWP values in Table 2.14.

https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2509/2267

[Aufan59 62]

On 4/17/2024 at 7:05 PM, I_M4_AU said:

 

The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Table 2.14 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) show the increase in warming by methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) is 21 and 310 times respectively that of CO2. There has been wide acceptance of these values since publishing in 2007. Nevertheless, they are inaccurate. This study uses accurate methods to calculate the impacts of CO2, CH4, and N2O on the warming of the atmosphere. For example, this quantitative analysis from reliable physics shows the contribution of CO2 to warming at Amsterdam is 0.0083oC out of a difference of 26oC. The warming effect of CH4 on the Earth’s atmosphere is 0.408% of that of CO2, and the warming by N2O is 0.085% of that of CO2. Thus, the warming effects of CO2, CH4, and N2O are too small to measure. The invalidity of the methane and nitrous oxide values indicates the GWPs of the remaining approximately sixty chemicals in the Table 2.14 list are also invalid. A recommendation is that the IPCC consider revising or retracting the GWP values in Table 2.14.

https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2509/2267

Did you actually read that paper?  Do you understand it?  

 

It’s calculating the enthalpy of CO2 in the air.  Mathematically it doesn’t seem wrong… but enthalpy has nothing to do with the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.  
 

That paper has to either be satire or intentionally obtuse.  

 

 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

6 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Did you actually read that paper?  Do you understand it?  

 

It’s calculating the enthalpy of CO2 in the air.  Mathematically it doesn’t seem wrong… but enthalpy has nothing to do with the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.  
 

That paper has to either be satire or intentionally obtuse.  

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it is, it goes against 97% of environmental scientists.  The point is there are other points of view and we should not believe the science is settled enough we spend $50 trillion to obtain net zero when the scientist don’t know how much the U.S. spending that money will affect the global temperature by 2100.

The original drop dead year was 2030, since we are with 6 years of that, I believe the drop dead year is now 2050.  Sounds a little fishy almost like the 2030 date was just fear mongering.

[Aufan59 62]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course it is, it goes against 97% of environmental scientists.  The point is there are other points of view and we should not believe the science is settled enough we spend $50 trillion to obtain net zero when the scientist don’t know how much the U.S. spending that money will affect the global temperature by 2100.

The original drop dead year was 2030, since we are with 6 years of that, I believe the drop dead year is now 2050.  Sounds a little fishy almost like the 2030 date was just fear mongering.

Did you read that paper and understand it?  Or did you just post it because it is an “alternative viewpoint”?

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

1 minute ago, Aufan59 said:

Did you read that paper and understand it?  Or did you just post it because it is an “alternative viewpoint”?

Did I read it?  Yes.  Did I fully understand it, not everything, but it rose a question that I believe more views should be looked at.

Do you think it wise or the U.S. to spend $50 trillion on this problem?

[Aufan59 62]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Did I read it?  Yes.  Did I fully understand it, not everything, but it rose a question that I believe more views should be looked at.

Do you think it wise or the U.S. to spend $50 trillion on this problem?

I have no problem with differing views, but that paper is being intentionally misleading.  The enthalpy of CO2 or other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming.  And the authors are obviously knowledgeable enough to know otherwise.

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

22 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

I have no problem with differing views, but that paper is being intentionally misleading.  The enthalpy of CO2 or other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming.  And the authors are obviously knowledgeable enough to know otherwise.

 

 

 

Answer my question, I answered yours.

What is the source of global warming?

[auburnatl1 4,920]

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

I have no problem with differing views, but that paper is being intentionally misleading.  The enthalpy of CO2 or other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming.  And the authors are obviously knowledgeable enough to know otherwise.

 

 

 

So if the composition of the atmosphere has nothing to do with temp and its variation (which vaporizes whole areas of basic chemistry and thermodynamics), what does? Our orbit from the sun is wobbling  all over the places, maybe mischievous climate elves?

[Aufan59 62]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

So if the composition of the atmosphere has nothing to do with temp and its variation (which vaporizes whole areas of basic chemistry and thermodynamics), what does? Our orbit from the sun is wobbling  all over the places, maybe mischievous climate elves?

Where did I say the composition of the atmosphere has nothing to do with temp and its variation?

 

[Aufan59 62]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Answer my question, I answered yours.

What is the source of global warming?

The greenhouse effect.  Namely CO2 and its absorption and radiation of infrared energy.  

[auburnatl1 4,920]

17 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Where did I say the composition of the atmosphere has nothing to do with temp and its variation?

 

My bad if I misunderstood 

[Aufan59 62]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

My bad if I misunderstood 

No problem.  The study used is confounding scientific terms to cause confusion.

 

”Enthalpy” is the term for energy contained in matter.  Warm water has more enthalpy than ice, for example.

 

All matter has enthalpy.  The CO2 in the atmosphere has enthalpy.  The oxygen and nitrogen do too.  The study is confounding enthalpy with the greenhouse effect.  
 

For those ignorant to science, like Jordan Peterson who tweeted this study, it might sound compelling.  But I will be glad to argue the science with anyone who confuses enthalpy with radiative forcing.  

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

24 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

The greenhouse effect.  Namely CO2 and its absorption and radiation of infrared energy.  

That was one question, the other is; would the $50 Trillion the U.S. will spend on net zero be worth the cost if we do not know how much the results would lower the earth temps by the year 2100?

 

 

[Aufan59 62]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That was one question, the other is; would the $50 Trillion the U.S. will spend on net zero be worth the cost if we do not know how much the results would lower the earth temps by the year 2100?

 

 

**** if I know.  I’m just here to tell you that quoting bull**** studies doesn’t help, regardless of what side you are on with this $50 trillion dollar question.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

2 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

**** if I know.  I’m just here to tell you that quoting bull**** studies doesn’t help, regardless of what side you are on with this $50 trillion dollar question.

Doesn’t help?  Doesn’t help what?  The narrative of gloom and doom is right around the corner if we don’t do something?  anything?

Having a differing opinion is counter productive?

Net zero is the preferred method of stopping the increase in CO2 and it is cost prohibitive.  The Sec. of Energy admitted he has no idea how much it would lower the earths surface temps by 2100.