Started by PetterT, 21.08.2016, 20:57:07
Quote from: Amateur2 on 26.09.2016, 21:24:43Det vil vÃ¦re av stor interesse om Okular kan kommentere det Ned Nikolov (aka Den Volokin) presenterer hos Tallbloke. Etter en rask gjennomlesning av posten hos Tallbloke sÃ¥ finner jeg mange likhetstrekk med det Okular viser til i sine kommentarer pÃ¥ diverse fora og i sine egne bloggposter.
QuoteOur empirical model [...] suggests that pressure directly impacts the surface temperature through added force (by definition, pressure is a force applied over a unit area). The direct effect of pressure on the internal energy and temperature of a gaseous system is well understood in the classical thermodynamics as exemplified by the Ideal Gas Law. Fundamentally, there cannot be a kinetic energy and temperature without a force, i.e. without some form of pressure. Even electromagnetic radiation has pressure!A change of temperature due to a change of pressure without any addition or subtraction of heat is known as an adiabatic process. Adiabatic heating, a.k.a. heating by compression is a basic principle in the working of diesel engines, a technology we have successfully utilized for over 120 years. The results from our empirical data analysis suggest that the thermal effect of the atmosphere is analogous to a compression heating found in diesel engines except that it is caused by gravity. Therefore, the direction of causality in the real system appears to be different from that assumed in GCMs.
Quote from: Ryddegutt on 28.09.2016, 18:05:06Og sÃ¥ har vel termisk masse i atmosfÃ¦ren sammen med konduksjon mellom bakken og atmosfÃ¦ren ogsÃ¥ litt Ã¥ bety vil jeg tro.
Quote from: Okular on 29.09.2016, 07:16:53Tropopausen utgjÃ¸r effektivt balansepunktet i en massiv atmosfÃ¦re mellom intern konvektiv forflytning av masse/energi og frigivelse av energien til omgivelsene (verdensrommet) i form av strÃ¥ling. Det 'morsomme' er at dette balansepunktet synes Ã¥ ligge pÃ¥ samme atmosfÃ¦riske trykknivÃ¥ i alle massive atmosfÃ¦rer i solsystemet, helt uavhengig av atmosfÃ¦renes sammensetning, og ergo deres prosentvise GRAD av "strÃ¥lingsaktivitet". Dette trykknivÃ¥et er omtrent 100-200 mb.
QuoteIPCC may be significantly underestimating the effect of solar and ocean cycles in their models. The key point is we donâ??t know what drives the Earthâ??s climate. There are a bewildering number of natural and man-made factors that influence it.
QuoteConclusionsThe IPCC bases its conclusion that man has caused most of the warming in the late 20th century solely on two assumptions. The first is that the only natural causes of warming or cooling are TSI (total solar irradiance) and volcanism. Further, they assume the variability of TSI is very small and the climatic effect on the Earth is instantaneous and evenly distributed. We can see from the references above and here and here that this assumption is weak. The second assumption is that the warming from 1951 to 2010 is mostly due to man, see figure 10.1 here. This assumption is also dubious since the warming from 1910 to 1944 is very similar as shown here. How can one claim that the warming from 1910 to 1944 is natural and the warming from 1951 to 2010 is man-made? Further, as shown above, many natural climate cycles (both oceanic and solar) are much longer than 59 years. The IPCC calculation of manâ??s influence on climate was not based on data, it was computed from the difference between two climate model runs. One model used TSI, volcanism and the IPCC estimates of manâ??s influence and one was based only on TSI and volcanism. The â??Holocene temperature conundrumâ? casts serious doubt on the climate model results.So, given that many natural climate cycles are much longer than 59 years and poorly understood; how can we have confidence in the IPCC calculation of manâ??s influence? We are not suggesting that man has no influence on climate, but we do not believe that man has caused most of the recent warming.A key take-away is that solar variability and the Earthâ??s orbit can have a large effect on global climate. But, the conditions on the Earth at the time of the solar change coupled with the uneven distribution of oceans, ice and land on the surface cause the impact of any solar change to be distributed unevenly. This delays the global impact on temperature and causes what we observe as long term oceanic cycles. These long-term cycles are not properly accounted for in the climate models.We could argue with some of Javierâ??s points or conclusions, but he has provided a very good overview of natural climate cycles. These cycles are in the available literature piecemeal, but his well referenced and well organized posts are an excellent summary. English is not Javierâ??s first language and we need to look past this, but his research and content are first rate.
Quote from: Telehiv on 29.09.2016, 09:57:30SÃ¥ okular, du starter med Ã¥ skrive om (termisk) masse og ender med fokus pÃ¥ atmosfÃ¦retrykk, sÃ¥ dermed undres jeg pÃ¥ hvordan man kan beskrive forskjellen pÃ¥ dette og Nikolov & Zellers tilnÃ¦rmingsmÃ¥te for atmosfÃ¦risk temperatur? Eller om det er noen prinsipiell forskjell?
Quote from: Telehiv on 29.09.2016, 10:21:39[...] Stephen Wildes meget interessante kommentar:
Quote from: Okular on 29.09.2016, 14:08:40Huff, jeg vet ikke hvor jeg skal begynne med denne Wilde-karakteren. Vi har en forholdsvis lang og broket historie med "meningsutvekslinger", vi to. Jeg skal ikke rippe opp i disse her nÃ¥.