Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: preview about climate change  (Read 1679 times)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2019, 08:28:22 AM »
Thank you LankaTV

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2021, 02:14:50 AM »
https://dlib.scu.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/343857/2/9781138027954.pdf
1.1.1 The greenhouse effect
The atmosphere diffuses part of the sun’s rays in all directions, but a high proportion

is transmitted towards Earth, which heats up and radiates in turn. The range of a ray’s

wavelength depends on the temperature of the emitting body. Thus, the sun, whose

surface temperature is around 5,800 K, emits visible radiation, whereas the Earth,

whose average temperature is 15◦C, emits long-wave radiation (infra-red).
Some gases present in the atmosphere (CO2, water vapour, methane, etc.) are more
transparent to the sun’s radiation than to the Earth’s infrared radiation, thus producing

the greenhouse effect: the radiation is partly trapped, which provokes heating. The

Earth emits around 390 W/m2 at the surface, whereas the radiation emitted towards
space is 240 W/m2. The difference is called “radiative forcing’’. A doubling of the
concentration of CO2, compared to pre-industrial levels, could increase this value by
4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
The greenhouse effect exists naturally, and without it the average temperature of
the Earth would have been−18◦C instead of about +15◦C for the last 10,000 years
(only +10◦C 20,000 years ago during the ice age). It is its increase that brings problems.
Human activity has resulted into a rise in greenhouse gas emissions: the CO2 given
off by using fossil fuels is responsible for 55% of the increase in greenhouse gases

(during the 1980s), of which 25% CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and 15% methane,

with nitrous oxide (N2O), SF6 and the ozone formed making up the remaining 5%6.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 280 ppm (parts per million)
before the industrial era to 379 in 2005.

 " 390 W/m2 " : is this number right ? not 340 W/sqm !?

 A doubling of the
concentration of CO2, compared to pre-industrial levels, could increase this value by
4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.

The greenhouse effect exists naturally, and without it the average temperature of
the Earth would have been−18◦C instead of about +15◦C for the last 10,000 years
(only +10◦C 20,000 years ago during the ice age). It is its increase that brings problems.

It is not written 4° Kelvin,it is written 4 W/sqm or 4 W/m2 increase by 278 ppm (1750) to 556 ppm CO2 doubling


Now important in climate research :
                 climate change feedback,also called Planck feedback
                  Radiative Forcing

                  Radiative Balance ( of the Earth)
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy   or in W/sqm   https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10293
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439?journalCode=eaea
The Beer-Lambert law does not apply strictly to the relationship between radiative forcing (RF) of CO2 and concentration in the atmosphere, i.e., ΔRF = 5.35ln(C/Co). It is an approximation because water vapour competes unevenly with CO2 over the IR absorption wavelength range. We propose a quadratic model as an improved approximation. It links concentration to RF thereby allowing RF calculation at any concentration, not just ΔRF. For example, at 378 ppmv of CO2, the level in 2005, it calculates RF = 8.67 W m−2, or approximately 2.7% of the total RF of all the greenhouse gases. A second and independent method based on worldwide hourly measurements of atmospheric temperature and relative humidity confirms this percentage. Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming. Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.
Partial citation end .


Taking the moon,without atmosphere,as reference : - 18 °C   and

       Earth average temperature :                              + 15 °C                                                                           

                                                                                      33 °K difference

https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png 
How much the 4 W/sqm by CO2 ppm doubling increase reflects in temperature increase ,°K or °C ?
4 W/sqm /100 W/sqm = 0,04 x moon/Earth difference 33 °K = 1,32 °K increase ,expected 2060 !
But from 1750 temperature base
Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
according to Météo France. The concentration of CO2, according to IPCC provi-
sions11, will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 K by 2100 based on evolution scenarios.
Taking the 1,32 °K and decrease the above given 0,7 °K rising since 1850 = + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !


one problem : Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
                       Between Mid 80´ to 90´ the stationary temperature measurement method changed,international             

                       from mechanical thermometer to digital thermometer ,
                       up to 1° K difference in measure !


https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deThe greenhouse gas water vapor (H 2 O) contributes 36 to 66%, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 9 to 26% and methane 4 to 9% to the natural greenhouse effect. [33]
compared

 Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming.

        Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.
The resulting additional radiative forcing is discussed in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCCin 2011 compared to the reference year 1750 net (i.e. after deducting cooling effects such as aerosols) at 2.3 W / m². Gross, all long-lived greenhouse gases caused radiative forcing of 2.83 W / m². The most important greenhouse gas was CO 2 with 1.82 W / m², followed by methane with 0.48 W / m². Halogenated hydrocarbons caused a radiative forcing of 0.36 W / m², nitrous oxide 0.17 W / m². Of the short-lived greenhouse gases, ozone , the formation of which is stimulated by nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons, has the highest radiative forcing at 0.4 W / m². Aerosols cause negative (i.e. cooling) radiative forcing of −0.9 W / m².[37]                                                                         ::)
 The IPCC rates the degree of scientific understanding of the effects of greenhouse gases as "high". [32]
                                                                         ;)
                                                               Ansichtssache !

Sincerely
OCWL

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2021, 02:33:12 AM »
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deThe greenhouse gas water vapor (H 2 O) contributes 36 to 66%, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 9 to 26% and methane 4 to 9% to the natural greenhouse effect. [33]
compared

 Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming.

        Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.



 Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


Are other planets warming ?


https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/is-whole-solar-system-warming/

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                                       Even if there is only a 4% human contribution...

I acknowledge this is a different matter / not climate change,  but...

https://nyad.com/data/uploads/2017/04/carbon_monoxide_danger_levels.pdf

1,000 parts per million = Loss of consciousness after 1 hour of exposure.
1,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.001 ...  or 0.1%


12,800 parts per million,   12800 /1,000,000= 0.0128  ...  or 1.28%

12,800 parts per million = Immediate physiological effects, loss of consciousness
               and
danger of death after 1-3 minutes of exposure.
..... ..... ..... .....
Human contribution to green house gases at least 4%.

What other cause is there for global warming ? ... Radical and massive environmental
degredation caused by human activities...


That fact is, the water vapor contained in earth's atmosphere, is one of the main reasons
that the earth is not an ice box. 

           This has almost nothing to do with the cause of our current global warming !. 








Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2021, 02:54:55 AM »
That we human influences with our consume the climate numbers ? Yes,we do !

But : a. winter/sommer north-planet    and             summer/winter south-planet                temperatur change from 1750 to 2021

         b. day and night temperature change since 1750 to 2021
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island


         c. land temperature and sea/oceanic temperature since 1750 to 2021 change
         Jet-stream and Gulf-stream currents orientation

This/Such strong differences we do not get by a such a diagram

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg/800px-Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg.png

to observe


Sincerely
OCWL
p.s.:   I please for "Pardon-me !"  I did an incorrect relationship related " time window" !

https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png 
How much the 4 W/sqm by CO2 ppm doubling increase reflects in temperature increase ,°K or °C ?
4 W/sqm /100 W/sqm = 0,04 x moon/Earth difference 33 °K = 1,32 °K increase ,expected 2060 !
But from 1750 temperature base

Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
according to Météo France. The concentration of CO2, according to IPCC provi-
sions11, will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 K by 2100 based on evolution scenarios.
Taking the 1,32 °K and decrease the above given 0,7 °K rising since 1850 = + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !

  " + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !" clearly correct ,by above given time scheme :

                              " + 0,62 °K more up to 2060 temperature rising !

This related the the given base :

A doubling of the concentration of CO2,

compared to pre-industrial levels = 1750 with 278 ppm CO2,

could increase this value by 4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
4 W/sqm increase  in this given https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png  +- 340 W/sqm receiving spectrum
                                         how calculates this "340 W/sqm " number ?
                                       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant 

https://www-leifiphysik-de.translate.goog/astronomie/sonne/grundwissen/solarkonstante-und-strahlungsleistung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

The mean value for the solar constant was established in 1982 by the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva S.0= 1367W.m2.

                    The solar constant includes radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is measured by satellite as being 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) at solar minimum (the time in the 11-year solar cycle when the number of sunspots is minimal) and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m2) at solar maximum.[1]

   The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE2), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE2).
Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m2).
The amount reaching the Earth's surface (as insolation) is further reduced by atmospheric attenuation, which varies. At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth's surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location's latitude, and the time of day.                                  
                                              1367 W/sqm solar constant / 4 =  341,75 W/sqm
https://www-photovoltaik-org.translate.goog/wissen/globalstrahlung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deComposition of global radiation Global radiation is made up of two components with different proportions:
 direct radiation , i.e. solar radiation that occurs directly on the earth;

diffuse radiation , that is the part of the radiation that arises from scattering of solar radiation and from reflection.
https://www-photovoltaik-org.translate.goog/wissen/diffuse-strahlung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
Share of diffuse radiation The solar radiation on the earth's atmosphere is 1340 W / m2.
Even with a cloudless sky, this radiation is reduced by adsorption, scattering and reflection to an average of 1000 W / m2.


https://www.energie-experten.org/erneuerbare-energien/photovoltaik/planung/sonnenstunden#c29459


While the direct radiation is only given off by the sun, the diffuse radiation comes from the entire celestial hemisphere with the exception of the solar disk and does not cast any shadows.

 The ratio of both types of radiation is about 50:50. Depending on the weather, the result is different radiation levels.

Table 1: Radiation power of solar energy according to weather situation and season Weather situation summer winter

                                                                     sommer                              winter                         annual average
clear to slightly diffuse sky                     600 to 1,000 W / m2          300 to 500 W / m2            600 W / m2

light to medium cloudy sky                     300 to    600 W / m2          150 to 300 W / m2            338 W / m2

Heavily cloudy to foggy-cloudy sky         100 to   300 W / m2             50 to 150 W / m2            150 W / m2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average values (all weather conditions)      483 W / m2                     225 W / m2                     363 W / m2


                                                                              RELATIVITY !

                                                       From 1367 W/sqm to 1000 W/sqm
                                                                                PEAK

                                                           to all weather conditions annual

                                                                             AVERAGE                                                                  
                                                                            363 W/sqm                             

                     " ....  could increase this value by       4 W/m2        , which would cause a temperature rise. ...."   

                                    by doubling the 278 ppm CO2 (1750 )  to 578 ppm CO2 (2060 estimation )     


    https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Klimawirkung_von_Aerosolen?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                  However, aerosols are the antagonists of greenhouse gases. They mask part of global warming, according to the IPCC by around -0.9 W / m2 and thus around a third of the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases since 1750.   

                 https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/thumb/Aerosole_temp_zonal.gif/320px-Aerosole_temp_zonal.gif                                                                  RF or Radiative Forcing
https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Strahlungsantrieb?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
 
                                 to differ : on land and on sea changes observation (priority !)
https://bfw-ac-at.translate.goog/rz/wlv.lexikon?keywin=4389&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de The negative radiative forcing is in the order of magnitude of -1.5 W m -2 ("direct climate effect of the aerosol").

                                                             - 0,9 W / m² or - 1,5 W /  m²  ?
https://www-klimanavigator-eu.translate.goog/dossier/artikel/012000/index.php?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
According to the 5th report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2013, the cooling effect due to the increasing, man-made pollution of the atmosphere with aerosols between 1750 and 2011 was around -0.9 W / m2 (IPCC, 2013).

The uncertainty range is relatively large at -1.9 to -0.1 W / m2, because aerosols are very difficult to quantify due to their small size, their diversity, their short lifespan and complex reactions with one another and with other components of the atmosphere. Above all, the influence of aerosols on clouds is still poorly understood. More recent studies are about the same order of magnitude (Bellouin, N., J. Quaas, E. Gryspeerdt et al., 2020).

 Aerosols have masked a third of the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases (approx. 3.0 W / m2) since 1750 and reduced climate change from 1.5 ° C to 1.0 ° C by 2018 (Samset, B. H, 2018) . A recent study by Zheng et al. (2020) comes to the conclusion that aerosols have delayed climate change by around 40 years so far (Zheng, Y., Davis, S.J., Persad, G.G. et al., 2020).
                                     
                                                                        New study claim :
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2021/tu-delft/aerosol-particles-cool-the-climate-less-than-we-thought

                                                                  Taking as base :
Aerosols have masked a third of the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases (approx. 3.0 W / m2) since 1750 and reduced climate change from 1.5 ° C to 1.0 ° C by 2018 (Samset, B. H, 2018) .
                                                                          Statement :
from 1750 to 2018 we have had - all climate changing factors completed/excluded aerosols influence -

                                                          an average 1,5 °C higher temperatur !
                    The influence from (all !)anthropogenic greenhouse gases from 1750-2018   : approx.  3.0 W/m²

one problem : Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K ( and by 1 K in France )
                       Between Mid 1980´ to 1990´ the stationary temperature measurement method changed,international             

                       from mechanical thermometer to digital thermometer ,


                      with up to    1° K/1 °C    difference in measure !


               one measure in 1,25 meters high,others in 2 metres high ! Theoretical/practical world standarts : are different !

             
                                                   by ever observing and differing

                                                            °C   and  W/sqm use

                                      we can now read the IPCC information brevier
   
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Counter-/productive climate change action risc :

https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/windparks-als-klimakiller-100.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deAmerican researchers have measured a warming of 0.72 degrees within a decade in an area with over 2000 wind turbines.

Similarly the "urban - heat bulb/heat island - effect " https://community.wmo.int/activity-areas/urban/urban-heat-island                            The urban heat-island effect can raise temperatures by 5oC to 10oC, exacerbating heat waves.
https://www-swr-de.translate.goog/wissen/1000-antworten/umwelt-und-natur/1000-antworten-1730.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de0.72 degrees changes clearly also the total estate numeric temperature measurement !

https://www-nnz--online-de.translate.goog/news/news_lang.php?ArtNr=273203&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
For the science portal “scinexx.de”, German scientists had determined that the 1,300 wind turbines installed at sea and 29,000 (as of 2018) on land in Germany had already caused an additional temperature increase of 0.27 degrees Celsius within the last five years.

https://www-eskp-de.translate.goog/energiewende-umwelt/offshore-windkraftanlagen-verwirbeln-wasser-und-luft-9351111/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
   Understand wake vortices in the air better     Offshore wind power turbines take energy and momentum (“momentum”) from the wind field. In the lee of the turbines, a wake vortex arises with lower wind speed (wind speed deficits of up to 20% were measured) and higher turbulence. At some distance from the wind turbine, the wake vortex gradually dissolves and the conditions adjust to the ambient conditions. This adjustment ("diffusion") takes place faster if the ambient air is also already turbulent. Therefore, wake vortices are less pronounced when the air stratification is unstable and at higher wind speeds.
   For the conditions in the German Bight, for example, the horizontal and vertical structure of the atmospheric boundary layer is strongly influenced by the coastline. When the wind blows seaward from the land and warmer layers of air come to lie over the colder sea surface, a stable layer is created offshore. A situation that is often observed in spring and summer. Such stable stratification is a favorable condition for the development of extensive wake vortices. For wake vortices of individual wind farms, lengths of up to 32 km were measured; when the effects of different wind farms were superimposed, the length was up to 72 km or even more than 100 km (Djath et al., 2018; Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019). If, on the other hand, there is an unstable stratification - with cold air, which often comes from the northwest,above a warmer sea surface - the wake vortices are weakened and are shorter. In winter, wake vortices are therefore less pronounced. These regularities not only occur in the course of the year, but can even be observed during the day: In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019) .In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).

https://eifelon-de.translate.goog/umland/windsterben-durch-windkraft.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
After the german Eigen-expression "Waldsterben" now in future also to read   "Windsterben" ?! ::)


 Repeating :  For wake vortices of individual wind farms, lengths of up to 32 km were measured; when the effects of different wind farms were superimposed, the length was up to 72 km or even more than 100 km (Djath et al., 2018; Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).                                                       
    Lee and/or Luv wake vortice direction  ,Yo-Yo-effect (wave)https://www-sueddeutsche-de.translate.goog/wissen/windraeder-energiewende-windkraft-wirbel-1.5209098?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

the turbines in "windward", i.e. on the windward side, generate wake vortices with complicated turbulence patterns. These take the wind out of the leaves of the wind turbines that are further back (in "lee"). 
                 local/regional/national/without borderline drought/rain/storm/tornado/blizzard -incubatoren :
                                                                 on-/off-shore Wind Parcs !
http://oops.uni-oldenburg.de/1162/1/kaedop11.pdf
« Last Edit: December 09, 2021, 07:58:50 PM by lancaIV »

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2021, 02:17:23 PM »
The 1 statements :
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deThe greenhouse gas water vapor (H 2 O) contributes 36 to 66%, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 9 to 26% and methane 4 to 9% to the natural greenhouse effect. [33]
compared

 Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming.
                                                 The question 1 : water vapor RF  "36-66%" or "96%" ?

The 2 statement :                                                         
For example, at 378 ppmv of CO2, the level in 2005, it calculates RF = 8.67 W m−2, or approximately 2.7% of the total RF of all the greenhouse gases.
carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 9 to 26%
                                                 The 2nd question : carbon dioxide RF "2,7%" or "9-26%" ?

                                                                                     Why ?

               https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Carbon_dioxide_equivalent
                                      The scientifical nearly correct CO2eq from water/vapor use !

https://www-bpb-de.translate.goog/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/globalisierung/52730/wasserverbrauch?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                             
      Worldwide water consumption increased about sixfold between 1930 and 2000. The tripling of the world population and the doubling of the average water consumption per capita were responsible for this.             

                                                                          Since 1750 ?

               How many water/-vapor = CO2eq (in-/directly by open cycle)consumes/ produces,for example :   1 Jeans-trousers ?

               https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/


                                          Global average water footprint                                                             

                                            3178 litre/kg

                         

How many CO2eq consumes/produces one

 https://act.climeworks.com/fight-climate-change-video/?utm_source=googleBrand&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=GS-AO-World-en-Brand&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2ITnpOvW9AIV341oCR1pCggLEAAYASAAEgL2g_D_BwE

Ventilation-Monstrum in construction and then installation before absorving the first Kg CO2 ?

https://www-ressourcen--rechner-de.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de



https://systemdesign-ch.translate.goog/wiki/Entropie_und_Enthalpie?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

https://indoorairsolutions.co.uk/dehumidifier-vs-heater-can-a-dehumidifier-warm-a-room/
http://www.iwilltry.org/b/heat-your-home-with-a-dehumidifier/

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1841544A2/en
Still another aspect of the invention is a device that generates electricity from air internal energy independently of natural wind comprises a convergent nozzle equipped with first powered fan used to start the device and turbine that transfers air kinetic energy into mechanical energy which drives first turbine, second powered fan and electrical generator that generate electricity.
                                  independently of natural wind

 Since the present invention air-turbine operates in a rather close container, water drainage system is required to remove rain waters accumulate within the nozzle or at the rotor chamber. Moreover, since air entering the nozzle is chilled (see numerical example later), water vapors could liquidize into water. To drain water from the air-turbine, a water collector 167 is added and it collects water from the convergent nozzle and transfer them to pipe 131. Also a drainage hole and pipe 168 collects water from the rotor chamber. In arid area, this water could be used for any usage since these are clean potable waters. If the turbine is placed in areas where clouds present, i.e. top of mountains or high towers, than significant amount of water could be generated and stored for later use. The water collecting and draining system is another embodiment of the invention.


as aircraft engine :
Therefore, the engine according to this invention are:
 1. The engine do not use fuel, meaning that the aircraft flight range is unlimited. 2. The aircraft is safer -no fire hazard. 3. The aircraft needs no fuel tank and fuel systems, therefore lighter and cheaper to build, so its operating cost is smaller. 4. The aircraft is much quieter since burning fuel generates much of the engine noise.
 5. The aircraft do not generates CO2 and do not contribute to earth warming process, on the contrary, it lowers the air temperature thus this engine is highly environmental.


CO2 specific inversion phaenomen using heat engine(also for heat pump function possible)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990318&CC=DE&NR=19740299A1&KC=A1#
[0012]
The asymmetrical cycle of this process for converting thermal energy into usable mechanical energy, shown in the Mollier t / s diagram for carbon dioxide (CO2) in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, works on the left side of the inversion line, in a pressure range in which all processes run mirror-image to the right-hand side of the inversion line and the usual behavior of CO2 is reversed:

When the pressure increases, cooling takes place instead of heating.


                                                             free "open source"-Ideas for eco-thinker !

Sincerely
OCWL

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2021, 12:43:26 AM »
Okay,here a first useable link related temperature influence factor and their quotes :
https://www2.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/229/29260X-1202.pdf
Beitrag zum natürlichen Treibhauseffekt
absolut                      °C            Anteil in %
Wasserdampf           20,6              62,4
Kohlenstoffdioxid       7,2               22
Ozon (bodennah)      2,4                 7,2
Distickstoffoxid          1,4                 4
Methan                      0,8                 2,4
FCKW                        0,7                 2


translated :
Contribution to the natural greenhouse effect

absolute                                 ° C            share in%

Water vapor                          20.6           62.4

Carbon dioxide                       7.2            22 

Ozone (near the ground)       2.4              7.2

Nitrous oxide                         1.4              4

Methane                                0.8              2.4

CFC                                        0.7             2

20,6 + 7,2 + 2,4 + 1,4 + 0,8 + 0,7 in °C    = totals 33,1 °C   =   the -18°C to +15 °C as natural greenhouse temperature amplitude

https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Wasserdampf?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Strahlungshaushalt_der_Atmosph%C3%A4re?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
3 reflection and absorption On average, the atmosphere receives only a quarter [1] of the solar constant or 342 W / m 2 of the total solar radiation due to the spherical shape of the earth and the night side facing away from the sun .
Of this radiation, however, only 235 W / m 2 or 69% are actually available for warming the atmosphere and the earth's surface, since 31% or 107 W / m 2 , the so-called planetary , due to the reflection on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere Albedo , immediately reflected back into space.

Of the 342 W / m 2 it becomes 67 W / m 2are absorbed by clouds, water vapor, dust and ozone in the atmosphere and thus heat the atmosphere directly, while 168 W / m 2 are absorbed by the earth's surface and heat it up.


http://www.pci.tu-bs.de/aggericke/PC5-Atmos/Strahlung.pdf


https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Klimawirkung_von_Aerosolen?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de3 Global darkening and global brightening   (https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/thumb/Aerosole_dimming.gif/320px-Aerosole_dimming.gif)   The global solar radiation on the ground according to the geographical latitude    With regard to the natural influencing factors, an astonishing paradox emerges. On the one hand, the global temperature has increased significantly; on the other hand, numerous measuring stations around the world show a decrease in solar radiation on the ground of around 7 W / m 2 from the 1960s to the 1980s .

The explanation is seen in the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the associated increase in water vapor on the one hand and in anthropogenic aerosols and the associated increase in the reflection of solar radiation and cloud cover on the other. [4]

Aerosols weaken solar radiation both directly in a cloud-free atmosphere and indirectly by changing the cloud cover.
In addition, aerosols change the vertical temperature profile due to the strong cooling effect on the ground and the partial warming in the middle troposphere. This can have significant consequences for the hydrological cycle.
Since the middle of the 20th century, recent studies have distinguished three phases in the radiation effect of aerosols: [5]
 a significant weakening of solar radiation in the 1950s-1980s, which is referred to as "global dimming",
an increase in solar radiation from the 1980s to 2000, sometimes called "global brightening",
from 2000 a decrease in the "brightening" with a renewed weakening of the solar radiation.
 Accordingly, the course of the global mean temperature since the middle of the 20th century can at least partially be explained by the influence of aerosols. [5]

This is especially true for the northern hemisphere, from which by far most of the anthropogenic aerosols originate.

From 1950 to 1980, the strong aerosol concentration in the northern hemisphere had a cooling effect that roughly offset the greenhouse effect through anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Accordingly, there was no significant warming or a minimal cooling of -0.002 ° C per decade during this time. Since the 1980s, the emission of aerosol precursors, especially sulfur dioxide, has decreased significantly as a result of air pollution control measures in developed industrial countries and the partial collapse of old socialist industry. The significant increase in the mean temperature of the northern hemisphere between 1980 and 2000 by 0.3 ° C per decade was certainly influenced by this.



The southern hemisphere, on the other hand, shows a continuous warming of a little more than 0.1 ° C per decade between 1950 and 2000.
Since the turn of the century, aerosol pollution has been increasing again due to the rapid industrialization in the emerging countries, especially in China and India. This may explain the small changes in temperature since around 2000. [5] The anthropogenic emissions of sulfate aerosols have risen from 106 Tg SO 2 in 2000 to 112 Tg SO 2increased in 2005. The main reason was the increased share of Asia, especially China and India, from 41 to 52% of global emissions, while in the same period the share of North America and Europe (including Russia) fell from 38 to 25%. However, between 2005 and 2011 global emissions fell again from 112 to 101 Tg SO2 because China, the largest aerosol emitter, significantly reduced its emissions through control measures at power plants. [6] A share of anthropogenic aerosols in the lack of temperature rise can therefore not be assumed. [7] 

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2021, 10:40:51 PM »
Discovery was initially ridiculed                    findings over the time



https://www-welt-de.translate.goog/wissenschaft/article1914384/Ein-Schmetterling-kann-Staedte-verwuesten.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                        the base from "climate change",the observation from and correlation with the
                                           Milutin Milankovitch " planet earth climate cycle" :
                                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles                               
                                              https://www.britannica.com/biography/Milutin-Milankovitch
                                              https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5340
                                              https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Milankovi%C4%87-Zyklen?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

                                             RF = Radiative Forcing                                            +         OF = Orbital Forcing
 
                                             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing


references : so called "climate archives"   
 https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/paleoclimate/archives.asp
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/natural-records-past-climate-maps-visualizations-and-descriptive-information
https://eos.org/features/five-weird-archives-that-scientists-use-to-study-past-climates
https://eos.org/features/cores-3-0-future-proofing-earth-sciences-historical-records

https://www-spiegel-de.translate.goog/spiegel/wie-shell-sein-wissen-ueber-den-klimawandel-geheim-hielt-a-1202889.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
https://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/


Contribution to the natural greenhouse effect

absolute                                 ° C            share in%

Water vapor                          20.6           62.4

Carbon dioxide                       7.2            22 

Ozone (near the ground)       2.4              7.2

Nitrous oxide                         1.4              4

Methane                                0.8              2.4

CFC                                        0.7             2

BUT : when we think and write and speak about AIR temperature we get this air gas listening :

Composition of the air  , with the conditioning Main components of dry air at sea level
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Luft?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
CO2 in dry air,by volume 0,04 ppm                                 Now the media with great number play :https://www-spiegel-de.translate.goog/wissenschaft/mensch/klimawandel-woher-die-gewaltige-energie-der-erderhitzung-stammt-a-692ebf01-faf1-4ffe-828a-16493d24715b?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                  Every liter of air we breathe in contains 3,432,000,000,000,000,000 CO2 molecules from fossil fuels.........

The physics was better than any crystal ball Our emissions from the use of fossil fuels and (around a quarter) from deforestation have already increased the amount of CO2 by around 45 percent - in every liter of air we breathe there are around 3,432,000,000,000,000,000 CO2 added to molecules by us humans.

" increase"  ergo the quantity to calculate between the 378-410 CO2 ppm from the 1750 pre-industrial 278 ppm CO2 = 130-100 ppm CO2


........


Not impressive , this number    3,432,000,000,000,000,000         by observation

https://www-chemielounge-de.translate.goog/4404/menge-an-co2-molekulen-im-einem-kubikmeter-erdatmosphare?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de


This now gives the number of CO 2 molecules per cubic meter of air:
 0.00048164 kg m -3   / 7.308 * 10 -26 kg =    6.59 * 10 21 / m 3   

and cause 1 cbm = 1000 liter volume :  cbm *10v21      to *10v18 per liter content





and when we know that we humans as bio-machines converts the breath air in    : 21% O2/  0,04% CO2

                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                            3,432,000,000,000,000,000 CO2 molecules

                                                                                                                 to air out : 17% O2/  4%      CO2
       
                                                                                                                        343,200,000,000,000,000,000 CO2 molecules
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                           in/out ratio : greater 100
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                        per liter air
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                        per day circa 12 000 liters ( 24h x 60 min x 8,5 lt.) !

                                               343,200,000,000,000,000,000 molecules CO2 x 12 000 = daily per capita body average CO2-print
                                               343,200,000,000,000,000,000 molecules CO2 x 12 000 lt.  x 365,25 days = 281 Kg CO2 per annum

                                               number-chaos-controle !  ::)

Question : why is there a 33° Kelvin earth with actually atmo(=Vapor)-sphere(globe/ball) to without "atmo" assumption !?


                          15°C the average middle air temperature from earth

                  33°K - 15°C =  - 18°C

                 - 18° Celsius : by which reference,base  ?

                 The earth its moon can not not serve as reference  :


 Here one average calculation trial :
          https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-average-surface-temperature-of-the-earth-s-moon
 "......   
On the sunlit side of the Moon, the mean surface temperature is 107 °C, and the maximum temperature is 123 °C.

The "dark side of the Moon" has a mean surface temperature of -153 °C, with a minimum temperature of -233 °C.
... You could take an average of the mean maxima and minima to get a mean surface temperature of -23 °C, but it wouldn't be very meaningful. "


Instead "-18° C" +15°C = 33° K  we would have to calculate with "-23° C" + 15°C = 38 °K spread ! ( Other  : -25°C average on moon ! )

1750-2020 : + 0,7° degree !

Interestant the top temperature during Great-Britain 1955 and 1976 "heat waves" and the comparison from average 1955 and 1976 temperature with the average temperature over the decades before :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_United_Kingdom_heat_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_British_Isles_heat_wave
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2014/jul/18/heatwave-weather-summer-temperatures
https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/bibliography.html

https://www-sueddeutsche-de.translate.goog/wissen/erderwaermung-was-forscher-ueber-den-klimawandel-wirklich-wissen-1.2757138?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
But hasn't there been talk of a "warming break" in recent years?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming   
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7346-clearing-smog-has-led-to-global-brightening/https://iac.ethz.ch/group/climate-and-water-cycle/research/radiation-and-the-hydrological-cycle/global-dimming-and-brightening.html



                   Other search puzzle-part :
https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wissen/himmel-jahr-1750-11133461.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
"So far we have assumed that the pre-industrial sky was much more cloudless than it is today, because there must have been far fewer aerosols around which droplets can form," explains particle physicist Kirkby. "Now we have discovered that biogenic aerosols such as pollen or spores contribute much more to cloud formation than previously assumed".

The role of sulfur dioxide, which is released, for example, when coal is burned, has so far been completely overestimated.
 "Natural aerosols,which rose above all from the large pine forests around 1750 have a much greater capacity for cloud formation and function perfectly even without sulfur dioxide, ”says Jasper Kirkby.


https://www.sidmartinbio.org/what-is-the-average-moon-temperature/

The moon tilts on its axis about 1.54 degrees — much less than Earth's 23.44 degrees. This means the moon does not have seasons like Earth does. However, because of the tilt, there are places at the lunar poles that never see daylight.

In future there,by permanent deep temperature,  superconductive process generator installation ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

Wireless transmission from produced energy to earth ?!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2021, 12:57:26 AM by lancaIV »

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2021, 02:25:52 PM »
Let us not go back to 1750 but to the beginning from the 20th century :

https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/thumb/CCC_global_temp1850-2020.jpg/440px-CCC_global_temp1850-2020.jpg
when,at which fixed hour/time from day/night ,these temperatures were measured ?!

Influencefactor : "chronological natural/anthropenic "summer/winter time" !

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Sommerzeit?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
BUT : Such a regulation is used almost exclusively in temperate zone countries.
"temperate zone" : ?             https://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/tuv/temperate-zone.htm

For comparation : 1 year temperature measurement in "temperate zone countries" a. with and b. without anthropogenic time change !

Seconds : the greatest terrestric active GWpotential ?
1. the "urban heat islands"(energy source-green or black energy-independent) 
    the urban subsurface heat deposit

2. and the agriculture/florestal work by ground color change !
    Color and its absorption or reflection effect and ground surface roughness !
https://www-fis-uni--bonn-de.translate.goog/recherchetools/infobox/profis/was-ist-fernerkundung/reflexion-und-absorption?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
https://www-spektrum-de.translate.goog/lexikon/geowissenschaften/bodenrauhigkeit/2106?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

Going back to 1750 : circa  750 Mio. habitants on earth with sqm " soil/floor/ground sealing " per capita !?
                      2020 : circa 7500 Mio. habitants on earth with sqm "soil/floor/ground sealing " per capita !?

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Fl%C3%A4chenversiegelung?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
https://www-tagesspiegel-de.translate.goog/wissen/ich-mache-mir-grosse-sorgen-berlins-grundwasser-heizt-sich-immer-weiter-auf/24416078.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
Cholera from the groundwater That it should therefore be protected from contamination became clear in the middle of the 19th century. Several thousand people died as a result of cholera outbreaks. Soon the "underground water" was suspected to have something to do with it. According to a request by the doctor Rudolf Virchow, a total of 30 pipes were driven underground in 1869 at the instigation of city planning officer James Hobrecht in order to observe the groundwater, i.e. to measure the water level and temperature.
The approach was correct: Robert Koch later found the pathogen, the bacterium Vibrio cholerae, and it was recognized that these had got into the groundwater from faeces and infected numerous people. Virchow's request had another use.


Thanks to her, there have been groundwater observations in Berlin for 150 years, the longest series of measurements of this kind in Germany.
In the nineties, the researcher systematically set up a city-wide monitoring network.


                                                              "What's that for? It's no use,"   ::) ??? ;)
the geologist remembers who would have said at the time.
He went on, drawing on the ancient records dating back to Virchow's time, and making amazing discoveries.Limberg shows on a map how the temperature of the groundwater is distributed across Berlin at a depth of 20 meters:
in the peripheral areas it is around eight to ten degrees, i.e. close to the mean air temperature.

In the center, however, it is over 13 degrees, locally up to 20 degrees.

The air temperature is also higher there , but not to the same extent.


                                "heat islands air temperature" and "heat island ground temperature"
                                                            heat storage-effect like :
             https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Latentw%C3%A4rmespeicher?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
When using latent heat storage for solar heat storage of heating energy for the winter, the investments are higher, but the system saves a lot of space compared to the use of water tanks or gravel and can give off heat more evenly than these because of the utilization of latent heat.
                                    all urban regions are today like  solar heat storage working !


https://www-buch--der--synergie-de.translate.goog/c_neu_html/c_10_07_e_speichern_thermisch.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

                                                        Material  heat storage

The commonly used heat accumulators are usually very voluminous, have to be very well insulated and are nevertheless not able to store the heat over long periods of time.



As an alternative, there are various materials that are available everywhere and in virtually unlimited quantities, such as sand, soil and rock. Concrete or ceramic elements can also be used as storage materials.

                                   " anthropogenic geothermal heat storage " as GWPotential
                        https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

                                                                  ;)

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33708
Urban areas are major contributors to air pollution and climate change, causing impacts on human health that are amplified by the microclimatological effects of buildings and grey infrastructure through the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

But : this anthropogenic "geothermic heat islands"-effect can also be seen as source :
https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/magazine.detail.html/magazine/renewable-energy/geothermal-heat-islands.html

A nice productive week wishing


OCWL
p.s.: interestant   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

without ice : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Topographic_map_of_Greenland_bedrock.jpg/290px-Topographic_map_of_Greenland_bedrock.jpg
also interestant :
In 1950, Denmark agreed to allow the US to regain the use of Thule Air Base; it was greatly expanded between 1951 and 1953 as part of a unified NATO Cold War defense strategy. The local population of three nearby villages was moved more than 100 kilometres (62 mi) away in the winter. The United States tried to construct a subterranean network of secret nuclear missile launch sites in the Greenlandic ice cap, named Project Iceworm. According to documents declassified in 1996,[64] this project was managed from Camp Century from 1960 to 1966 before abandonment as unworkable.[65] The missiles were never fielded and necessary consent from the Danish Government to do so was never sought. The Danish government did not become aware of the program's mission until 1997, when they discovered it while looking, in the declassified documents, for records related to the crash of a nuclear equipped B-52 bomber at Thule in 1968.[66]

and related

https://www-geo-de.translate.goog/natur/geheimes-us-projekt-offenbart--groenlands-eis-juenger-als-gedacht-30438114.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

As the researchers report in their study published in the journal PNAS, such plants can only have grown at a time when Greenland was largely ice-free. For example in a boreal coniferous forest.

  Greenland's ice sheet less stable than expected  The real sensation, however, came with the age determination: An isotope analysis showed that the "freeze-dried" plant parts and minerals can only be a few hundred thousand to a maximum of a million years old. The previous assumption that the ice sheet in Greenland has existed in its current extent for around 2.6 million years is therefore no longer valid. Just like the ideas about the stability of the kilometer-thick ice sheet in the face of climate change.

greener,warmer, Groenland climate than today periods :   

https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000125475271/was-die-klimageschichte-der-arktis-ueber-die-erderwaermung-verraet
Strong sunlight The dating of the sample led the team of scientists to a warm period 549,000 to 588,000 years ago. "This section is actually considered to be globally cool compared to the present. The growth of this sinter of soil at that time shows, however, that the Arctic must have been warmer than it is today," explains Moseley.

Today the north-east of the Arctic is dry and with little precipitation, a polar desert characterized by permafrost. At that time it was warm enough that there was running water in a cave.

 The existence of the speleothemes in this region as well as the analysis of the chemical signatures contained therein showed that it was at least 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. The analysis of the sample also suggests that soils are covered with humus in this region - and thus that there is vegetation. Today there is nothing but bare rock.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
                                                            International  ::) Standarts ( eventually by international conference convention)
                                                        "International        Standarts" by national point of view

                                                                                  ;D
https://www-wissen-de.translate.goog/raetsel/hoehenangaben-warum-beziehen-sie-sich-auf-verschiedene-nullpunkte?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
During the construction of the Rhine bridge between the German and Swiss parts of the city of Laufenburg, something embarrassing happened:

there is a height difference of 54 centimeters between the two sides.
                                                    8)
The cause: Switzerland takes the level of the Mediterranean as the zero point,
                  Germany (its zero point ) is based on the North Sea.

Ideal world, real world In an ideal world with an ideal sea, the level would be the same everywhere. The sea surface would be smooth and would have the same physical height everywhere:



                                              zero meters or sea level (NN).


However, there are some things in the real world that do not allow such an ideal picture:
 tides, uneven mass distribution within the rock masses of the earth,

a greater centrifugal force at the equator than at the pole,

different salinity, different temperatures, currents, waves and winds.
Reading climate-new and numbers relativation to real world heights :

https://www-spiegel-de.translate.goog/wissenschaft/natur/groenlaendischer-eisschild-schmilzt-massiv-ab-a-23a996a9-eca2-4c98-b7a1-b895217b29e1?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
According to a European study published in January, sea levels will rise ten to 18 centimeters by 2100 - or 60 percent faster than previously thought - if the Greenland ice sheet melts as quickly as it does now.
From 2012 - 2100 ten to 18 centimeters more/higher "mean sea level" -
Groenland  2.166.000 km² area and the total Arctis with ice melting potential 21 000 000 km²
and
the continent Antarctica  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic and South-America

+ regional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound up to 0,5 mm or 0,05 cm per annum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
summa summarum : 50 centimeters or 0,5 m up to 2100 p.C. the "mean sea level " increase potential
                                                          Nordsee/North-Sea
https://halligen-de.translate.goog/halligleben/halligleben-heute/landunter?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                                                          Ostsee/Baltic Sea
a regional example about several different factors/parameters and the result :
 The tides and the Baltic Sea  After so much theory, we now know how the tides are formed, how they affect and we have even got to know the displacements and inequalities, but what does it look like in concrete terms on the Baltic Sea?



We remember in April 2003 the water level was almost 1 meter higher than usual. 
We know that the influence of the tides on marginal seas and the Baltic Sea is a marginal sea, is very limited. In the Kattegat, for example, we have a tidal range of around 30 cm, which decreases to around 10 cm in the central Baltic Sea and increases again to 20 cm in St. Petersburg due to the length of the Finnish sea bosom. In contrast, the tidal range decreases to a few centimeters in the northern part of the Baltic Sea. 
We know what is meant by tide, but what is a tidal range? According to DIN 13312, the tidal range is the arithmetic mean of the rise and fall of a tide . This is necessary because the water level before and after a tide can have different water levels. 
To summarize: 10 cm of the water rise could at best have been caused by tides. But that's not enough, what about the remaining 90 cm?
 
https://www-nautisches-com.translate.goog/index.php?id=gezeiten&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                                                                       the tide
https://www-nautisches-com.translate.goog/index.php?id=gezeiten_ostsee&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
If we transfer our findings to the Baltic Sea, we can assume that a water height difference of approx. 30 to 60 cm could arise due to changes in air pressure.If we add our 10 cm from the tides, we have a water height difference of 40 to 70 cm. It looks pretty good, but unfortunately these values ​​are still not enough.

https://www-nautisches-com.translate.goog/index.php?id=wind_wasserstand&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

If the wind turns to the southwest and lasts again for a few days, it pushes the water masses of the Baltic Sea towards the northeast and the water level in the Bay of Kiel can be one meter below the mean water level.
Hear and be amazed, even on the Baltic Sea, water level changes of plus one meter to minus one meter, i.e. two meters, can occur, which are caused by the wind.
So that is the remaining water height that we were missing!

About real world meteorological/climatological mesurement I mean to recommend :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Geiger
https://books.google.com.cu/books?id=X6-TBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.pt/books?id=X6-TBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=einfluss+bodenfarbe+auf+lufttemperatur&source=bl&ots=6dU2xLqn1t&sig=ACfU3U27o9AzsemdYUo4tVtwZVeSUJn7eA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih3q7Aod_0AhUHJBoKHVznDnYQ6AF6BAgpEAM#v=onepage&q=einfluss%20bodenfarbe%20auf%20lufttemperatur&f=false
           free radiation surface temperature                     /         shadowed and wind-free near-surface (= 2 mtr hight ) air temperature

New scientifical study disclosure :

 https://www-n--tv-de.translate.goog/wissen/Baeume-wachsen-nur-an-einigen-Tagen-article22993971.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
« Last Edit: December 12, 2021, 11:25:28 PM by lancaIV »

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4820
Re: preview about climate change
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2021, 11:54:36 AM »
to #3 the numbers :
   Even if there is only a 4% human contribution...

I acknowledge this is a different matter / not climate change,  but...

https://nyad.com/data/uploads/2017/04/carbon_monoxide_danger_levels.pdf

1,000 parts per million = Loss of consciousness after 1 hour of exposure.
1,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.001 ...  or 0.1%


12,800 parts per million,   12800 /1,000,000= 0.0128  ...  or 1.28%

12,800 parts per million = Immediate physiological effects, loss of consciousness
               and
danger of death after 1-3 minutes of exposure.
..... ..... ..... .....
Human contribution to green house gases at least 4%.
Citation End.
                               numbers play comparison :

from 1750 to 2020 a CO2 increase in atmospheric air from 278 ppm to 415 ppm,               circa 50% more !

from 1750 to 2020 a CO2 producing humans number increase from 750 Mio. to 7500 Mio.,circa 900% more !


The above 50% ppm increase from 270 years spread to arithmetical 1 minute increase we get :

                                                             0,000000352% increase


With each breathing in-/out cycle we humans -as adults,in calm situation- breaths 4,7 liter air in out ,with the air composition change :


breathing air in  :        21% O2 and 0,035% CO2

breathing air out :      17%  O2 and 4,0 % CO2

per minute : a (4/0,035)  11428% ( eleven thousand four hundred ... percentage ) CO2 increase
related above                             0,000000352% global


https://www-co2online-de.translate.goog/service/klima-orakel/beitrag/wie-viel-co2-atmet-der-mensch-aus-8518/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
How much CO2 does a person exhale?

Depending on the person's body weight, body mass and activity level, a person exhales between 168 and 2,040 kilograms of CO2 per year.
The CO2 inhaled content : 0,035-0,04 %

The CO2 content of the exhaled air is fairly constant at 4 percent, i.e. 40 milliliters of CO2 per liter of air.

However, the oxygen consumption and thus the CO2 emissions are influenced by the body size and above all the physical activity:

While around 4 liters of air per minute pass through the lungs at rest, this increases to over 50 liters per minute during physical exertion. Spread over the year, these two extremes mean 2,100 cubic meters of air or 168 kilograms of CO2 in periods of rest compared to 25,500 cubic meters of air or 2,040 kilograms of CO2 during continuous exposure.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) that animals or humans exhale does not contribute to climate change as it is part of the natural carbon cycle. This is explained in this article by klimafakten.de.

 
But this is not really a problem !
Let us look for the gases/vapors/atmo called Treibhausgas/Greeenhouse-gas and its natural effect

( the common used expression "water" in Technics and Natural Science "water vapor" !):
https://www-klimanavigator-eu.translate.goog/dossier/artikel/011967/index.php?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
                                        the irradiation absorption window from H2O and CO2
                                        and short-wave to long-wave conversion

https://www.klimanavigator.eu/imperia/md/images/csc/klimanavigator/fittosize_610_0_6a098294cfa03444c8698713afc336fd_climate_and_earth_s_energy_budget-3.png

Going mental back to the 80´: a great theme : "electro-smog",beside " London-type and Los Angeles-type photo-smog" !   

                                                  Global dimming and global brightening effect !

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071930
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/causes-of-climate-change/0/steps/13583
https://cdn-wordpress-info.futurelearn.com/info/wp-content/uploads/c6e1faeb-98a5-4cbb-adf1-85204fabce35-606x415.png
                       the 1750-2011 radiative forcing increase from ground-near ambient ,totally for CO2-emission :
                                                                             1,6 W/m²
the global dimming effect for comparison in W/m² :
https://cdn-wordpress-info.futurelearn.com/info/wp-content/uploads/c6e1faeb-98a5-4cbb-adf1-85204fabce35-606x415.pnghttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017EGUGA..19.1420I/abstract
Preliminary results for the third case study, i.e. 2001-2009 using MODIS aerosol data, indicate apatchy global picture of GDB, yet with an overall dimming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) equal to -2.3 W/m^2, and a stronger dimming of -4.15 W/m2 in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), thus suggesting an inter-hemispherical GDB difference.
         an artificial dimming can neutralize 270 years anthropogenic CO2 emission and radiative forcing effect
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4  ;) 8)

We have to observe a "thermalsmog",the heat islands,which influences

the real/fiction number from atmospheric toposphere ground-near (= 2mtr hight measurement)
                                                        air ( in light and wind shadow weather-box ) "temperature"

 measurement ,specially cause in the ,from equator line view, northern hemisphere there is a higher land area than sea area
                                                                   compared the southern hemisphere !

https://www-umweltbundesamt-de.translate.goog/daten/flaeche-boden-land-oekosysteme/boden/bodenversiegelung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                                           2020                +- 45% from the total DE surface ,     1750 ?                                                                    global ?
  the city buildings mass as summer (day/night) and winter (heat energy convection/night) non calculated " passive heat capacity" storage
  the streets with their darker color

  albedo difference from bright/dark colors : up to 5°C, + surface roughness and material kind dependence



Our moving planet,circulating around its own axis, has at the equator 1670 Km-h velocity ,at the poles relatively 0 Km-h !But the velocity around the solar-system middlepoint,our sun,is 107000 Km-h !

Radiant forcing and Orbital forcing and Iono-Magnetic forcing :

   https://www-eskp-de.translate.goog/grundlagen/naturgefahren/erdmagnetfeld-935649/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

                                                   our atmo(=vapor/gas hull)sphere
https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/e4/22/16/shutterstock-1697221522.jpg

and  https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-homosphere-and-heterosphere/

is in a dynamic expansion/compression and heat(Brownian movement)convection process
https://weather-com.translate.goog/de-DE/wissen/astronomie/news/erdachse-verschiebt-sich-gletscherschmelze-eurasien?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force


The IPCC Report only treats a part from the total Wegener(Pangaae)-Milankovitch cycle change

the earth climate change will become bi-lateral/-valent ,zonal cooling down and heating up and zonal both ,but with faster seasonal changes !

From 7500 Mio. habitants to 10000 Mio. and more habitants increase, a problem, from 7500 Mio. habitants back to the 1750 p.C.   750 Mio habitants ,then not a problem !

The A.T./OT from the Bible its age ? Paradise/Paraiso/Yarden/Jardim/Garten habitants number ?

https://www-wissenschaft-de.translate.goog/geschichte-archaeologie/altes-testament-koennte-schon-um-600-v-chr-entstanden-sein/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
600 ante Criste nascimento
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1066248/umfrage/geschaetzte-entwicklung-der-weltbevoelkerung/
                                             "the philosophic heaven" on Earth ,only habitated by 100 Mio. MAN-schen





We will see in future much movement ! Human mass,air mass and water mass !

The EE-researcher did much for geral thinking change ,by "surprisingly" moments and specific phenomens observation !
pV related : pressure and volume :



Avogrado-konstante  https://www-chemie-de.translate.goog/lexikon/Avogadro-Konstante.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

"Einstein" as unit : https://www-chemie--schule-de.translate.goog/KnowHow/Einstein_(Einheit)?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

The auxiliary unit of measurement Einstein ( unit symbol : E ) is occasionally used in photo and biochemistry to indicate the number of light quanta, i.e. photons . It is not an SI unit and should not be used.



One Einstein corresponds to one mole and is therefore nothing more than the numerical value of Avogadro's constant in mol -1 ,
                                                                       i.e. H. 1 E = 6.022 10 23 .




Sincerely
OCWL
« Last Edit: December 14, 2021, 02:21:06 PM by lancaIV »