Hot Air Performance as a (Cost) Consideration for Flying and Future Aircraft

[Jean Claude]

Juergen, my post #4 shows mostly 40 years of non-warming despite the industrial explosion (from 1940 to 1980) The incomplete datas can not be invoked during this period.
Records of sea level to Brest in France gives the same information:



. http://refmar.shom.fr/image/image_ga...=1504525089431

IPCC want abolutely explain the climate warming by CO2, strangely assuming a constant Sun, which we know yet variable by its unpredictable eruptions.

 

[kolibri282]

How do you know, Jean-Claude, that the data are not incomplete, did you collect them..?....;-)

PS: I just read, that in Puerto Rico people are still without electricity, three month after the Hurricane. Private companies Tesla and Sonnen, from Germany, are trying to alleviate the situation by donations, where's the government?.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...2/__trashed-2/

 

[Jean Claude]

What other data do you need to see that the rise of the North Atlantic is paused during these 40 years of great industrial development?
How much CO2 should be invoked for the abrupt 100 mm step between 1790 and 1810?
http://refmar.shom.fr/image/image_ga...=1504525089431

 

[kolibri282]

What other data do you need to see that the rise of the North Atlantic is paused during these 40 years of great industrial development?

The ones that are missing according to post #40, Jean-Claude.

 

[C. Beaty]

Pope Frances and California’s Gov. Moonbeam at a Vatican press conference declared the California brush fires and the heavy snowfall in Northern Europe are Trump’s fault for his skepticism about man made global warming.
I could use a bit of global warming right now- It was 37ºF (3ºC) at 8AM this morning in this part of Florida and I’m still huddled up next to my midget electric heater trying to stay warm.

 

[Jean Claude]

Rising seas level: Here, the Baltic Sea recorded during the last 130 years http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html

 

[ckurz7000]

The Baltic Sea is an interesting topic because it exhibits something called the Baltic Land Uplift which needs to be taken into account when calculating sea levels. It is also termed "Post.-glacial rebound effect" and was historically used to estimate the viscosity of the earth's crust. Has the data you cite been corrected for this? Because if you do, apparently the sea level in the Baltic is rising!

In any case, here is a very interesting read on that topic.

-- Chris

 

[Jean Claude]

Chris, these data have still unscathed from the ambiant ideology.
But I agree with you, Chris.
When you movea weight from one side to the other of a boat, one side lifts while the other sinks.
IPCC explains the crust rising on a side but it forgets say that the other side is sinking

 

[ckurz7000]

I am no expert and have no ideological stamdpoint on this topic. However, the data for the Baltic Sea show a rising of sea level when corrected for the post glacial rebound effect. This, to me, is a good indication that sea levels in general are rising. I am no geologist but of course any rebound effect needs to be taken into account no matter where. Are you saying this has not been done? Apparently the Baltic Sea is the area with the most precis and longest observational data anywhere.

Are you saying that you have evidence that sea levels are not rising?

-- Chris.

 

[Jean Claude]

The post-glacial rebound effect is deduced from the sea level decline relative to the guessed non-rebound level. If you then correct the level measured by the rebound effect, you can only recover the postulated level without rebound.
So, no matter where you measure the rise or fall of the sea level relatively to the local crust (*), this can not be for me the proof of the rising of the global sea level .
(*) by tide-gauge

 

[ckurz7000]

The data clearly shows a deviation from the well established rebound effect that starts at the year 1900 and increases with time. This cannot be explained by the dynamics of the rebound effect. It tallies well with observed sea level rises in other areas of the world, where the rebound effect is much less significant. In viewing available data I come to the conclusion that the rise in sea level is not "fake news" but well established.

I do realize, however, that none of us posting on this topic are anything but parrots quoting bits and pieces of a quite complex field of science. The momentum for this debate comes largely from personal opinions and believes which are not likely to be changed by any piece of evidence taken out of context. We are all too smart not to find counter-evidence and keep the discussion alive. None of us, I dare say, has enough original knowledge to add anything that would change somebody else's mind. Fallind sea levels in the Baltic are a good example of this.

-- Chris.

 

[Jean Claude]

Chris, I do not want to show that the global level of the seas is stable. I'm just saying that the proofs of the global level increase are not made. The statement "You must believe the experts" is contrary to the scientific spirit. It's up to the experts to prove their claims.
You, like me, know that somme "good" researchers affirmed the existence of over-men, last century ago, based on measurements of the cranial box. Those who doubted of that was just not published.

 

[ckurz7000]

Short of devoting my days to the study of climate change, there is little else I can do but to read some papers published by experts. Since I haven't made the observations myself, nor do I posess the means to validate every claim ab initio, there is little I can do but believe them. Sure, I weed out the less trustworthy sources and outrageous claims. But ultimately it comes down to what you believe. In some other areas, such as nuclear physics or plasma physics, I am in a slightly better position.

Greetings, -- Chris.

 

[ckurz7000]

Chris, I do not want to show that the global level of the seas is stable. I'm just saying that the proofs of the global level increase are not made. The statement "You must believe the experts" is contrary to the scientific spirit. It's up to the experts to prove their claims.
You, like me, know that somme "good" researchers affirmed the existence of over-men, last century ago, based on measurements of the cranial box. Those who doubted of that was just not published.

What would it take for you to be convinced of rising sea levels? Not that I would want to convince you, just curiosity.

-- Chris.

 

[Jean Claude]

Should not you be curious of check the sea-rise forecasts over a period of 10 years for example, by directe measurings maked by some independant laboratories? Is not so how one usualy proceeds in science?
Measuring devices should obviously reject the tidal disturbances, while ipcc uses tide gauges designed primarily to observe them. Just my opinion.

 

[XXavier]

No Title

Should not you be curious of check the sea-rise forecasts over a period of 10 years for example, by directe measurings maked by some independant laboratories? Is not so how one usualy proceeds in science?
Measuring devices should obviously reject the tidal disturbances, while ipcc uses tide gauges designed primarily to observe them. Just my opinion.

Somewhere in the internet there may be information on the zero-sea level reference of the many national topographic surveys. In Spain, for example, the National Survey has the reference (still mentioned in all maps) of the 'mean sea level of the Mediterranean at Alicante'. Along two years, 1870 - 72, four measurements were taken every day, the mean of all the measurements was finally computed, and the basis reference (in fact, +3,409 m) was materialized on the first step of the stairs in the Alicante town hall, where it can still be seen today.

I don't know if more modern measurements have been made and compared with the original one. Probably they have, and similar (often older) sea-level references sure exist in many other countries...

 

[ckurz7000]

Should not you be curious of check the sea-rise forecasts over a period of 10 years for example, by directe measurings maked by some independant laboratories? Is not so how one usualy proceeds in science?
Measuring devices should obviously reject the tidal disturbances, while ipcc uses tide gauges designed primarily to observe them. Just my opinion.

Frankly, I am not so interested in this topic to devote much time to it. I just felt I should comment because you posted the Baltic Sea data without mentioning the post-glacial rebound effect, implying that these data supported lowering sea levels, which it does not.

-- Chris.

 

[Jean Claude]

Yes, Chris. A tide gauge only shows the level differential between the crust and the sea, not a absolute level. So long nothing is knowed about the sinking of the crust, they will can not show that the seas rises due to a warming . Just a clue to guide research, not a scientific fact

 

[Jean Claude]

Xavier, here the annual averages measured by the tide gauge of Alicante from 1952 to 1995

 

[XXavier]

Xavier, here the annual averages measured by the tide gauge of Alicante from 1952 to 1995

I suppose it's in mm. It's very stable...
One of the reasons for the choice of Alicante as reference was its geological stability...