Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Earth's basic geography, almost all are not aware of.
#1
Hi All,
It occurs to me not many are aware that earth's surface is 76% water (or ice), and only 24% land....

Which has rather fundamental implications as to how we should base the studies of earth's climate system. I will expand upon this in a very, very simple and easy to understand way in the next post, but for the time being, enjoy the pdf.


Attached Files
.pdf   Basic_Geography_76_24_when_corrected.pdf (Size: 1.35 MB / Downloads: 198)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#2
Hi All,
The basic geography of earth is quite different to the moon mostly because of the presence of an atmosphere. It is often overlooked that the most important affect of the atmosphere's presence is that it allows liquid water to be at earth's surface. Hence earth has oceans and the moon does not.

The vastly increased heat capacity and heat content of earth's surface compared to the moon's surface insulates earth's surface. This can be quite easily shown by comparing the diurnal temperature ranges, and the overall average temperature of the earth and moon surfaces.

[Image: Earth_moon_temperatures_corrected_zpszwgkpsud.jpg]


.pdf   Earth_moon_temperatures_corrected.pdf (Size: 113.41 KB / Downloads: 138)

If the modeling history of climatology is traced, then it is quite apparent that the maths, and the physics thus far employed in the models are NOT the most important or even the physics that the basics of earth's geography, and the laws of thermodynamics, dictate must be modeled.

I am a geographer as such, and I say climate modeling has been dictated by maths and physics wrongly applied to the actual physical geography of earth. It is way past the time that climate modeling was put on the proper geographical basis, not the unphysical black body based balderdash (BBBB) that is currently being modeled.

I often hear it said that it is the physicists that will sort this mess out, when referring to the current state of climate modeling. They will not. They, the physicists and the maths used by the mathematicians got it into this mess. What will get the modeling out of it's current impasse is when it retraces it's steps and starts again by modeling the actual physical geography of earth, that it currently does not model. A geographer will have to tell the physicists and the mathematicians what to model, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.

Excerpt from above link -
"There is a simple choice to be made as to what should be the basis of climate modeling and climate science.
a) An unphysical effect within the atmosphere supposedly warming the surface of earth.
Or,
b) A physically explainable gargantuan increase of heat content and heat capacity to the surface of earth, and the insulating affect it has.
This is due to the presence of an atmosphere, and therefore the presence of the world's oceans.

At present "politics" has decided in favour of the former, but in the end science will have to decide in favour of the latter, simply because the former is unphysical, and the latter is physical.
"
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)