Natural Tidal Forcing for Global Warming

[Wild Cobra]

Those of us who have studied the earth sciences know the earth is warmed by three sources. Primarily the sun, then tidal forces and internal nuclear radiation.

This may be of interest for discussion:

Surf zones warmed from within : Nature News & Comment (http://www.nature.com/news/surf-zones-warmed-from-within-1.16148?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20141021)

It's an October 15 article out of Nature. Here is one passage:


The analysis showed that waves were packing much more heat than the team had expected: roughly one-quarter the amount coming from the southern California sunlight. Furthermore, they calculate that in places with stronger waves and cloudier skies — such as the US Pacific Northwest — wave heating could be nearly three times stronger than the energy imparted by the Sun.

They reference this:

The Surfzone Heat Budget: The Effect of Wave Heating - Sinnett - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061398/abstract;jsessionid=796DF3EEB62AA7C4F2EE2C10C953C2 8E.f01t03)


Abstract

Surfzone incident wave energy flux is dissipated by wave-breaking which through viscosity generates heat. This effect is not present in shelf heat budgets, and has not previously been considered. Pier-based observations of water temperature in 1–4 m depth, meteorology and waves are used to test a surfzone heat budget, which closes on diurnal and longer time-scales. Wave energy flux is the second most variable term with mean contribution 1/4 of the mean short-wave radiation. The heat-budget residual has semi-diurnal and higher frequency variability and net cooling. Cross-shore advective heat flux driven by internal wave events, rip currents and undertow contribute to this residual variability and net cooling. In locations with large waves, steeper beaches or less solar radiation, the ratio of wave energy flux to short-wave radiation may be >1.

It appears CO2 may have another contender, which could put CO2 in 4th place.

1) Solar

2) Soot on ice

3) Tidal energy

4) CO2

[boutons_deux]

:lol

AGW denier! :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

AGW denier! :lol

Are you now calling Nature a denier publication?

[boutons_deux]

Are you now calling Nature a denier publication?

no, I'm calling you a AGW denier.

co2/methane trap heat that clearly warms the air, land, water, duh. Your beloved soot is from BigCarbon processes, how to separate soot from CO2 emissions?

etc, etc, etc.

How much does BigCarbon pay you to shill for them?

[Wild Cobra]

no, I'm calling you a AGW denier.

Yes, your cult like mentality would.



co2/methane trap heat that clearly warms the air, land, water, duh.

No shit Sherlock. However, I have always maintained, and recent studies confirm that CO2 does not warm as much as claimed. Nether does CH4.

See: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf



Your beloved soot is from BigCarbon processes, how to separate soot from CO2 emissions?

That's easy. Soot is an aerosol that can be scrubbed out of the emissions. We have converted most of the US fossil fuel burning facilities to scrub it out and all new ones do. It's Asia, primarily China that is the problem. Their released soot is picked up by the polar cells and deposited on the northern ice, causing the melting in the warmer months to accelerate, and decelerates the rebuilding on the colder months. With the extra exposed sea, the norther ocean warms more causing more problems yet.



How much does BigCarbon pay you to shill for them?
You keep proving yourself a Joker.

[pgardn]

In what ways does solar energy interact with the Earth to heat the Earth Cobra?
Why is it that Mercury has an atmosphere that is cooler than Venus even though Mercury is much closer to the Sun?

Work your way back please. Since you know so much about science.

[Wild Cobra]

In what ways does solar energy interact with the Earth to heat the Earth Cobra?

It's the primary energy source to produce the earths heat. An earth with no atmoshere would have an average approximate 255 kelvin (-18 C) temperature. Greenhouse gasses act as a blanket, and since the energy is somewhat trapped, the earth warms to an approximate 288 kelvin (15 C).

Link:

http://people.duke.edu/~ad159/files/p112/15.pdf

[pgardn]

It's the primary energy source to produce the earths heat. An earth with no atmoshere would have an average approximate 255 kelvin (-18 C) temperature. Greenhouse gasses act as a blanket, and since the energy is somewhat trapped, the earth warms to an approximate 288 kelvin (15 C).

Link:

http://people.duke.edu/~ad159/files/p112/15.pdf

So the atmosphere is very important.
Do the types of gases that make up the atmosphere matter?

[Wild Cobra]

So the atmosphere is very important.
Do the types of gases that make up the atmosphere matter?
Absolutely. First, to animal life, we have the oxygen need. To sustain plant life, we need CO2. I suspect evolution would have taken different angles to life if the atmospheric mix was different, but we have evolved to need the approximate 20% oxygen and 0.03%+ CO2.

All these gasses are grey body absorber/emitters that respond to specific spectra. Water is the primary greenhouse gas, absorbing the largest portion of the long wave radiation, and a significant portion of the shortwave energy as well.

[pgardn]

And so tidal energy has increased drastically over the past 100 years?

[pgardn]

Absolutely. First, to animal life, we have the oxygen need. To sustain plant life, we need CO2. I suspect evolution would have taken different angles to life if the atmospheric mix was different, but we have evolved to need the approximate 20% oxygen and 0.03%+ CO2.

All these gasses are grey body absorber/emitters that respond to specific spectra. Water is the primary greenhouse gas, absorbing the largest portion of the long wave radiation, and a significant portion of the shortwave energy as well.

Yet you choose to add tidal energy to the list because...

[pgardn]

Absolutely. First, to animal life, we have the oxygen need. To sustain plant life, we need CO2. I suspect evolution would have taken different angles to life if the atmospheric mix was different, but we have evolved to need the approximate 20% oxygen and 0.03%+ CO2.

All these gasses are grey body absorber/emitters that respond to specific spectra. Water is the primary greenhouse gas, absorbing the largest portion of the long wave radiation, and a significant portion of the shortwave energy as well.

So so we look closely at changes in the types of gases in the Earth's atmosphere because...

[Wild Cobra]

So so we look closely at changes in the types of gases in the Earth's atmosphere because...
LOL...

Why are you playing this game?

Because they change the feedback amplification from the solar energy. More H2O means more absorption and emission of radiant energy. Same with CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.

[pgardn]

LOL...

Why are you playing this game?

Because they change the feedback amplification from the solar energy. More H2O means more absorption and emission of radiant energy. Same with CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.

Tides, it's all in the tides...

Keep brining in insignificant tangents, hope it's something else.
Why do you continually do this?
Look at your list, it's laughable. So yes, lol...

[Wild Cobra]

Tides, it's all in the tides...

Keep brining in insignificant tangents, hope it's something else.
Why do you continually do this?
Look at your list, it's laughable. So yes, lol...
I believe the tides are insignificant myself, but I haven't researched anything to quantify them. I was hoping someone would find something of significance, but it appears instead, it just called out trolls like you.

I take it the little comparisons the link states is just among the immediate region of coasts. I would laugh if they meant global levels.

[pgardn]

It appears CO2 may have another contender, which could put CO2 in 4th place.

1) Solar

2) Soot on ice

3) Tidal energy

4) CO2

Insignificant ahead of any greenhouse gases. Currently thought to be the major reason of a statistical significant rise in global temps in the last 100-150 years.
Gotcha Mr. Science...
Those of us who know... Nothing? Those of us who have studied the Earth sciences...


Seriously. Damn.

[Wild Cobra]

Insignificant ahead of any greenhouse gases. Currently thought to be the major reason of a statistical significant rise in global temps in the last 100-150 years.
Gotcha Mr. Science...
Those of us who know... Nothing? Those of us who have studied the Earth sciences...


Seriously. Damn.
As I explained in post 15, it would really be faryher down in my opinion, but I'm open to it being greater than CO2. I just don't see it being true, but threw it out any way.

[RandomGuy]

Those of us who have studied the earth sciences know the earth is warmed by three sources. Primarily the sun, then tidal forces and internal nuclear radiation.

This may be of interest for discussion:

Surf zones warmed from within : Nature News & Comment (http://www.nature.com/news/surf-zones-warmed-from-within-1.16148?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20141021)

It's an October 15 article out of Nature. Here is one passage:



They reference this:

The Surfzone Heat Budget: The Effect of Wave Heating - Sinnett - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061398/abstract;jsessionid=796DF3EEB62AA7C4F2EE2C10C953C2 8E.f01t03)



It appears CO2 may have another contender, which could put CO2 in 4th place.

1) Solar

2) Soot on ice

3) Tidal energy

4) CO2


The perennial conclusion in search of evidence, cherry picked by hand.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0173/4896/files/628x471_medium.jpg?1133

So let me know if your reading of these theories led you to the tidal energy equilibrium value, and if tidal energy is increasing over time or decreasing over the last 250 years.
Do tell.

[RandomGuy]

Those of us who have studied the earth sciences know the earth is warmed by three sources. Primarily the sun, then tidal forces and internal nuclear radiation.

This may be of interest for discussion:

Surf zones warmed from within : Nature News & Comment (http://www.nature.com/news/surf-zones-warmed-from-within-1.16148?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20141021)

It's an October 15 article out of Nature. Here is one passage:



They reference this:

The Surfzone Heat Budget: The Effect of Wave Heating - Sinnett - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061398/abstract;jsessionid=796DF3EEB62AA7C4F2EE2C10C953C2 8E.f01t03)



It appears CO2 may have another contender, which could put CO2 in 4th place.

1) Solar

2) Soot on ice

3) Tidal energy

4) CO2


Surf zones warmed from within
Friction in breaking waves has been an overlooked source of heat in coastal waters.


The analysis showed that waves were packing much more heat than the team had expected: roughly one-quarter the amount coming from the southern California sunlight. Furthermore, they calculate that in places with stronger waves and cloudier skies — such as the US Pacific Northwest — wave heating could be nearly three times stronger than the energy imparted by the Sun.

Such a great article.

Let see how your substandard critical thinking skills mangled an appropriate conclusion, based on this evidence.

Tell me, WC, what percentage of the worlds oceans are in "coastal waters" as defined by this study?

[Wild Cobra]

Such a great article.

Let see how your substandard critical thinking skills mangled an appropriate conclusion, based on this evidence.

Tell me, WC, what percentage of the worlds oceans are in "coastal waters" as defined by this study?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Please look up the definitions of "would" and "could."

Why are you such a fucking ignorant asshole? Is it your substandard critical thinking skills that lead you to ASSume?

Did you read post 17?

[RandomGuy]

What the hell is wrong with you?

Please look up the definitions of "would" and "could."

Why are you such a fucking ignorant asshole? Is it your substandard critical thinking skills that lead you to ASSume?

Did you read post 17?

Not really, I had time to read the first post and link before lunch was up. I am guilty of not having enough time. Mea culpa.

It took me just a few seconds to find the flaw in the OP, and I spent more time looking for a funny picture having to do with poop than bothering with your followups.

The only thing I really assumed was that you meant what you said, when you posted:


It appears CO2 may have another contender, which could put CO2 in 4th place.

1) Solar

2) Soot on ice

3) Tidal energy

4) CO2

So either you figured out how stupid that was shortly after you posted it and walked it back, or you were essentially lying about what you thought in the OP.

I really can't tell which. Perhaps you could enlighten me, which was it, stupid or lying?

[TeyshaBlue]

Not really, I had time to read the first post and link before lunch was up. I am guilty of not having enough time. Mea culpa.

It took me just a few seconds to find the flaw in the OP, and I spent more time looking for a funny picture having to do with poop than bothering with your followups.

The only thing I really assumed was that you meant what you said, when you posted:



So either you figured out how stupid that was shortly after you posted it and walked it back, or you were essentially lying about what you thought in the OP.

I really can't tell which. Perhaps you could enlighten me, which was it, stupid or lying?

Yes.

[RandomGuy]

Yes.

Classic WC.

Moving on...