No kidding! I can't remember a colder St Paddy's day
i think we're looking at snow for tomorrow. it must be that cooling cycle thing.
An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter John R
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
i think we're looking at snow for tomorrow. it must be that cooling cycle thing.
Well we have never been known for taking punches when it comes to our homeland, just ask the English. Scotland is in the forefront when it comes to the Global Warming issue, and implying that she is good for nothing because of this, or any other reason, is just unacceptable. Scotland may not be the largest most powerful country in the world, but the people are passionate about their lives, their land, and their futures, which is more than I can say for many Americans. How did one of the largest and most powerful countries in the world become so jaded? God Bless America! or as Bush would say "God Bless Amurica".
And besides, what would the world be without Fat Bastard?????:clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1:
Last edited by a moderator:
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'
Science Daily ? Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.
It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.
Average without meaning
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
Many averages
A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.
Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.
Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.
Claims of disaster?
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.
What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.
Reference: C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007).
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Copenhagen.
Science Daily ? Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.
It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.
Average without meaning
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
Many averages
A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.
Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.
Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.
Claims of disaster?
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.
What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.
Reference: C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007).
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Copenhagen.
President Bush's minion, now working for Exxon-Mobil, alters scientific report 181 times.http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/NEWS04/703200384/1024/NEWS04
whatever the average is, it sure is saddening to see the ice melting, glaciers receeding, and snow caps disappearing. any hypothesis as to why this is happening? if we're actually going into a global cooling phase, as some in this thread have indicated, can we look forward to the ice coming back?
who in this thread hasn't seen the movie?
who in this thread hasn't seen the movie?
Yes, there is a hypothesis regarding solar flares and that we are currently being bombarded by higher than normal amounts of solar radiation, which would explain why the Martian ice caps are concurrently melting. William Gray of Colorado State (the hurricane forecast guru) thinks we are experiencing a warming trend due to deep ocean current changes (I don't fully understand it, but he says it is a natural cycle and has nothing to do with CO2 or dolphin unfriendly tuna fishing). I don't know why the ice would go away forever once the warming phase is over.
Regardless of ones belief if the world is warming due to human interference or not, how can it be a bad thing to think green?
Why would any of us actively try and persuade others that Gore is full of it and we should continue to live our lives as we please without consideration for the future? Because your life is convenient? Because you just don't like the messengers political affiliation?
I'm genuinely interested. To what end does it help in trying to disprove someones belief that the world would be better off reducing the amount nonrenewable resources we use?
Why would any of us actively try and persuade others that Gore is full of it and we should continue to live our lives as we please without consideration for the future? Because your life is convenient? Because you just don't like the messengers political affiliation?
I'm genuinely interested. To what end does it help in trying to disprove someones belief that the world would be better off reducing the amount nonrenewable resources we use?