Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Hydro

NZ safety changes, may apply to more areas sooner or later.

"A Maritime New Zealand investigation into the sinking of a yacht off the coast of New Zealand’s North Island in October 2019 has found that if storm covers had been fitted to cabin windows, they could have prevented the loss of the vessel and the skipper’s life."

https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/comme...22July2021.pdf

https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/resour...fety-regs-2021

Also would have survived if they had deployed the series drogue . Would likely have not experienced the broach and initial knockdown that blew the windows out.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

NOAA said it is consistent with a [30 year +] trend ["disturbing and disruptive path"], which is true.

newhaul said: "The planet seems to be cooling", which is certainly premature, [and likely untrue].

State of the Climate: Global Climate Report for July 2021 ~ NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information

Based on current anomalies and historical global annual temperature readings, it appears that it is virtually certain that 2021 will be a top 10 year, consistent with a strong propensity since 1988 for recent years to be initially ranked as a top 10 year (Sánchez-Lugo et al., 2018). Our calculations suggest:

< 1% chance of warmest year
< 4% chance of a top 5 year
>99% chance of a top 10 year
95% confidence interval of fifth to seventh warmest year on record

Here ➥ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/globa...emental/page-2

And ➥ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/met...aa.ncdc:C00672

Declaring the July 2021 "record" as evidence of a "disturbing and disruptive path" is conjecture, not truth. It also goes without saying that July is only the hottest month of the year in the Northern hemisphere and, considering the Earth reaches aphelion in July, it actually reflects the biases used to record, pardon the pun, the "record".

[bcboomer]

I guess you didn't actually look at the referenced articles. It says "global". That means the whole of earth

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

I guess you didn't actually look at the referenced articles. It says "global". That means the whole of earth

I guess you didn't actually look at the definition of aphelion.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Declaring the July 2021 "record" as evidence of a "disturbing and disruptive path" is conjecture, not truth ...

You might be right, had anyone done that, but we didn't.
NOAA [& I] said "consistent with ... record of", not "evidence of".

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You might be right, had anyone done that, but we didn't.
NOAA [& I] said "consistent with ... record of", not "evidence of".

Not sure who "we" is, and I will concede "evidence" wasn't perhaps the correct word to use for in this context. However, the following quote (as previously posted) from a NOAA Administrator would imply that he considers July 2021's record a little more than simply "consistent with", climate change per se, but rather that it "adds to the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the world". Which is opinion, imho, not observation.


It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

July 2021 has earned the unenviable distinction as the world’s hottest month ever recorded, according to new global data released today by NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
“In this case, first place is the worst place to be,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “July is typically the world’s warmest month of the year, but July 2021 outdid itself as the hottest July and month ever recorded. This new record adds to the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I guess you didn't actually look at the definition of aphelion.

I understand what aphelion means, but I don't understand how that supports your skeptical position?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I understand what aphelion means, but I don't understand how that supports your skeptical position?

The Earth receives ~7% less energy from the sun at aphelion compared to perihelion which (obviously) currently occurs in January. Now I know the Sun isn't an important weather (we are discussing a single month after all) driver in the eyes of many alarmist types but does anybody of any saneness not see a problem with the globally hottest month "forever" occurring when the Sun's energy striking the Earth is at it's weakest?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The Earth receives ~7% less energy from the sun at aphelion compared to perihelion which (obviously) currently occurs in January. Now I know the Sun isn't an important weather (we are discussing a single month after all) driver in the eyes of many alarmist types but does anybody of any saneness not see a problem with the globally hottest month "forever" occurring when the Sun's energy striking the Earth is at it's weakest?

Two points:

First, if the hottest month globally occurred at aphelion, then that is more alarming than had the hottest month occurred at perihelion.

Second, land mass is unequally distributed around the Earth; it is more concentrated in the northern hemisphere. Land masses heat up quicker than do the oceans. Therefore it is not surprising that the highest global temperatures occur during the northern hemisphere's summer, even if that happens to coincide with aphelion.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... does anybody of any saneness not see a problem with the globally hottest month "forever" occurring when the Sun's energy striking the Earth is at it's weakest?

No.

According to NASA, quoting Drs Roy Spencer & Bill Patzert:

Seasonal weather patterns are shaped primarily by the 23.5 degree tilt of our planet's spin axis, not by aphelion or perihelion.
The average temperature, of the whole earth at aphelion, is about 4oF or 2.3oC higher, than it is at perihelion.
This happens because continents and oceans aren't distributed evenly around the globe {as SailOar notes]. There's more land in the northern hemisphere, and more water in the south.

During the month of July, the land-crowded northern half of our planet is tilted toward the Sun. Earth's temperature is slightly higher in July because the Sun is shining down on all that land, which heats up rather easily, because continents have low heat capacity. It doesn't take much sunlight to substantially elevate the temperature of rock and soil.
Water has high heat capacity.

Northern continents, baked by the aphelion Sun, elevate the average temperature of the entire globe. January, on the other hand, is the coolest month, because that's when our planet presents its water-dominated hemisphere to the Sun.

Another notable difference between summers, in the two hemispheres, is their duration. According to Kepler's 2nd Law, planets move more slowly at aphelion, than they do at perihelion. As a result, Northern summer on Earth is 2 to 3 days longer than southern summer, which gives the Sun even more time to bake the northern continents.

Here ➥ https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...001/ast03jul_1

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Two points:

First, if the hottest month globally occurred at aphelion, then that is more alarming than had the hottest month occurred at perihelion.

Second, land mass is unequally distributed around the Earth; it is more concentrated in the northern hemisphere. Land masses heat up quicker than do the oceans. Therefore it is not surprising that the highest global temperatures occur during the northern hemisphere's summer, even if that happens to coincide with aphelion.

There's 20% of the total hemisphere area in land in the south, 40% in the north. Land mass isn't that big of a deal.


But if the land mass theory your are espousing is correct, please let us know how this doesn't effect the theory on why the Arctic is heating up twice as fast as everywhere else due to albedo effects from melting sea ice.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

No.

According to NASA, quoting Drs Roy Spencer & Bill Patzert:

Seasonal weather patterns are shaped primarily by the 23.5 degree tilt of our planet's spin axis, not by aphelion or perihelion.
The average temperature, of the whole earth at aphelion, is about 4oF or 2.3oC higher, than it is at perihelion.
This happens because continents and oceans aren't distributed evenly around the globe {as SailOar notes]. There's more land in the northern hemisphere, and more water in the south.

During the month of July, the land-crowded northern half of our planet is tilted toward the Sun. Earth's temperature is slightly higher in July because the Sun is shining down on all that land, which heats up rather easily, because continents have low heat capacity. It doesn't take much sunlight to substantially elevate the temperature of rock and soil.
Water has high heat capacity.

Northern continents, baked by the aphelion Sun, elevate the average temperature of the entire globe. January, on the other hand, is the coolest month, because that's when our planet presents its water-dominated hemisphere to the Sun.

Another notable difference between summers, in the two hemispheres, is their duration. According to Kepler's 2nd Law, planets move more slowly at aphelion, than they do at perihelion. As a result, Northern summer on Earth is 2 to 3 days longer than southern summer, which gives the Sun even more time to bake the northern continents.

Here ➥ https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...001/ast03jul_1

CO2 doesn't generate it's own energy. It needs something to provide it. The land doesn't generate it's own energy. It needs something to provide it. The ocean doesn't generate it's own energy. You get the picture.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... But if the land mass theory your are espousing is correct ...

SailOar and I aren't the primary source of the land mass theory, Dr. Roy Spencer [the 'skeptic's favourite scientist] is, as noted.
It's a generally, well accepted explanation.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... You get the picture.

I do, though I'm no expert [just an informed layperson].
But you seem to need a little/lot more education, on the subject.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

SailOar and I aren't the primary source of the land mass theory, Dr. Roy Spencer [the 'skeptic's favourite scientist] is, as noted.
It's a generally, well accepted explanation.




I do, though I'm no expert [just an informed layperson].
But you seem to need a little/lot more education, on the subject.

Educate me. Where is this heat energy coming from?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

(1)CO2 doesn't generate it's own energy. It needs something to provide it.
(2) The land doesn't generate it's own energy. It needs something to provide it.
(3) The ocean doesn't generate it's own energy...

1. Greenhouse gases, like CO2 retain/trap the heat.
2. Substances with a low heat capacity*, such as iron, rock, & earth, will heat and cool more quickly.
3. A substance with a high heat capacity, such as water , heats and cools more slowly.

* Specific Heat:
Heat capacity is related to a substance's ability to retain heat, and the rate at which it will heat up or cool. So, a high specific heat value* means that it takes MORE energy to raise (or lower) its temperature. A low value means that it does not take very much energy to heat or cool it.
➥ https://socratic.org/chemistry/therm.../specific-heat