Australian Politics Forum - Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #45 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 4:45pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

Ok Ok I got egg on my face by 1000000.

You guys are correct in a way rabbit & muso.

Kudos for admitting it. You've gone up in my estimation.

Listen carefully - on days of rainfall, there is no effective evaporation. The atmosphere is at 100% relative humidity (near as damn it). You can check individual Weather stations if you like, but where there is precipitation, evaporation is nil or negligible. Obviously the rainfall figure is what you get. If there is evaporation, it doesn't get in the rain gauge.

I know this because during the wet seasons of 2010 and 2011, I was in the middle of it, and I was checking our weather station data and pond levels, extremely worried about overflow into water courses and the company being fined by the Environmental regulator.

This is a subject I know very well, and I lost a lot of sleep (and hair) on those Wet seasons. It wasn't good for the blood pressure either.

Obviously the evaporation rate recovers on dry days, but the total pan evaporation during that wet season was something like 10% of normal evaporation. Where you get extended periods of rain, there is very little evaporation.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 26^th, 2013 at 4:53pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10975
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #46 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:10pm

Hey muso

Well thank you... when i'm wrong I admit it...

No matter which way you look at it, it would be impossible for the Australian terrain to soak up 10000km3.

Yeah sure if there is already moisture in the air the evaporation rate may decrease, not disputing that one.

Hey dude the weather cannot be controlled by humans, that's something else that's impossible.

Quote:

Key facts

• Around 89% of Australia’s total rainfall evaporates or is transpired by plants into
the atmosphere. Only around 9% runs off into streams, rivers and storages. The
remaining 2% drains below the root zone into groundwater aquifers and, from
there, into rivers.

• Exactly how much rainfall returns to the atmosphere and how much is available to
recharge soil, surface, and groundwater stores depends mainly on the amount of
energy from sunshine, and to a much lesser degree on the type of soil and
vegetation, and the management practices on the land.

• Annual crops and pastures use less water per year than perennial vegetation,
including trees, primarily because of their short growing seasons and shallower
root systems. The larger canopies of native and plantation forests add to their
higher evapotranspiration.

• About 65% of continental Australia’s runoff occurs in far northern Australia and
coastal Queensland. Only about 7% of runoff occurs in the Murray-Darling Basin
where more than 50% of Australia’s water is used.

For you rabbit

http://www.mla.com.au/files/2089f840-665f-4c3d-834a-9d66008a9009/

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #47 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:58pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Hey muso

Well thank you... when i'm wrong I admit it...

No matter which way you look at it, it would be impossible for the Australian terrain to soak up 10000km3.

Yeah sure if there is already moisture in the air the evaporation rate may decrease, not disputing that one.

Hey dude the weather cannot be controlled by humans, that's something else that's impossible.

[quote][size=12]Key facts

• Around 89% of Australia’s total rainfall evaporates or is transpired by plants into
the atmosphere. Only around 9% runs off into streams, rivers and storages.

Do you think that might just be an average figure taken over many years? Roll Eyes

Obviously when there is extended heavy rainfall, it doesn't apply to that period because evaporation and transpiration is dramatically reduced. The percentage hold up and run-off is very dependent on rainfall intensity.

I don't think you have much of a handle on this.

Quote:

No matter which way you look at it, it would be impossible for the Australian terrain to soak up 10000km3.

Not 10,000. Once again, the figure is around 22% of that. 22% of 10,800km3 - about 2500 km3. Multiply that by a million and divide that by the ocean surface area (361,000,000) km2. How many millimeters does that make?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10975
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #48 - Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:14am

muso wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

I'll check Rabbitoh's figure. He said around 10,000km3 of rain fell over the two years.

The official figures say 1.409 metres over the two seasons.

So if we multiply 1.409/1000 by the surface area of Australia, we should get the result in cubic kilometres. Right?

So that's 7,692,024 square kilometres x 1.409/1000

That gives an answer of 10,838

Pretty close.

You are allowed to be wrong. You actually admitted you were wrong on another thread on another matter (and I was impressed by your honesty), so I hope you'll do the same thing here.

your the mathematician....?????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #49 - Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:44am

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Hey muso

Well thank you... when i'm wrong I admit it...

No matter which way you look at it, it would be impossible for the Australian terrain to soak up 10000km3.

Yeah sure if there is already moisture in the air the evaporation rate may decrease, not disputing that one.

Hey dude the weather cannot be controlled by humans, that's something else that's impossible.

Quote:

Key facts

• Around 89% of Australia’s total rainfall evaporates or is transpired by plants into
the atmosphere. Only around 9% runs off into streams, rivers and storages. The
remaining 2% drains below the root zone into groundwater aquifers and, from
there, into rivers.

• Exactly how much rainfall returns to the atmosphere and how much is available to
recharge soil, surface, and groundwater stores depends mainly on the amount of
energy from sunshine, and to a much lesser degree on the type of soil and
vegetation, and the management practices on the land.

• Annual crops and pastures use less water per year than perennial vegetation,
including trees, primarily because of their short growing seasons and shallower
root systems. The larger canopies of native and plantation forests add to their
higher evapotranspiration.

• About 65% of continental Australia’s runoff occurs in far northern Australia and
coastal Queensland. Only about 7% of runoff occurs in the Murray-Darling Basin
where more than 50% of Australia’s water is used.

For you rabbit

http://www.mla.com.au/files/2089f840-665f-4c3d-834a-9d66008a9009/

Nobody said the Australian terrain would soak up 10000km3.

Why do you keep lying like that?

WHat you have been told - repeatedly - is that 10000km3 fell on Australia over 2 years.
WHat you have been told - repeatedly - is that one quarter of this - 2500m3 is what would be needed to to reduce the global sea level by 7mm.
Not 10000km3
2500km3
Big difference liar.
You continually lie and misrepresent what you have been told.
Why do you feel that this dishonesty is necessary?
Is it because you realise how wrong you are?

What you are now showing us is that under normal conditions - some 11% of rainfall goes to streamflow or groundwater

Fine - I will accept that. You would have to concede however - that in 2010, after years of drought, and in a time of very high humidity - the amount of rainfall going to stream flow and ground water was probably a bit more than 11%. Was it 25%? Who knows - but it is in the ballpark. A lot better than you - who was out in his calculations by a factor of a million.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature Reply #50 - Aug 28^th, 2013 at 9:18am Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:14am: your the mathematician....????? It's simple arithmetic, not mathematics. Keep practising your arithmetic skills and you might get a good job one day. (Would you like fries with that? - sorry I got the change wrong.)
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10975
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #51 - Aug 28^th, 2013 at 2:33pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:44am:

Nobody said the Australian terrain would soak up 10000km3.

Sorry rabbit maths isn't my forte so with all these astronomical amounts of water somewhere along the way 2500km3 became 10000km3.

So you're saying 25 % of the rains got soaked up into the terrain, instead of 9% ok i'll run with that.

But what happens to all underground water....???

It finds its way to rivers and seas.......!!!!

Again this science isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Quote:

Why do you keep lying like that?

Like said with all these huge amounts of water I got lost.

Quote:

WHat you have been told - repeatedly - is that 10000km3 fell on Australia over 2 years.

agree.

Quote:

WHat you have been told - repeatedly - is that one quarter of this - 2500m3 is what would be needed to to reduce the global sea level by 7mm.
Not 10000km3
2500km3

agree

Quote:

Big difference liar.

No just a wannabe mathematician.

Quote:

You continually lie and misrepresent what you have been told.

Who's lieing now.....??????

Quote:

Why do you feel that this dishonesty is necessary?

I don't lie I search for the truth.

And when the AGW religion tells me that human CO2 emissions are responsible for heating the Earth up, and real world data suggests otherwise....well.....!!!

Just screaming at me.....because we say so.......doesn't do it fro me...!!!

Quote:

Is it because you realise how wrong you are?

Have you ever thought that your mod might be wrong...??

Quote:

What you are now showing us is that under normal conditions - some 11% of rainfall goes to streamflow or groundwater

When you give the facts and I can understand them I say cheers bud you made your point.

Why cant you except the facts about rainfall in Australia, I mean these people know what their talking, probably studied it all their lives.

Quote:

Fine - I will accept that. You would have to concede however - that in 2010, after years of drought, and in a time of very high humidity - the amount of rainfall going to stream flow and ground water was probably a bit more than 11%. Was it 25%? Who knows - but it is in the ballpark. A lot better than you - who was out in his calculations by a factor of a million.

You may be right I don't know, but like I said before all underground water finds its way to rivers and oceans.

Still puts a gaping hole in this theory that because it rained heavy over the continent of Australia some how this is responsible for lowering the sea level by 7mm.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #52 - Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:23pm

Quote:

You may be right I don't know, but like I said before all underground water finds its way to rivers and oceans.

Yes, a lot of underground water eventually ends up in the ocean again whether from drainage or evaporation. A proportion also ends up in very deep artesian aquifers.

The graph shows a blip around 2010 -2011. It then recovers big time. That's consistent with a lot of this held up water slowly percolating back into the ocean as you said.

Good point.

Quote:

Still puts a gaping hole in this theory that because it rained heavy over the continent of Australia some how this is responsible for lowering the sea level by 7mm.

- and then it recovered by about 10mm per year. Where's the gaping hole?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10975
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #53 - Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:46am

muso wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

Quote:

You may be right I don't know, but like I said before all underground water finds its way to rivers and oceans.

Yes, a lot of underground water eventually ends up in the ocean again whether from drainage or evaporation. A proportion also ends up in very deep artesian aquifers.

The graph shows a blip around 2010 -2011. It then recovers big time. That's consistent with a lot of this held up water slowly percolating back into the ocean as you said.

Good point.

Quote:

Still puts a gaping hole in this theory that because it rained heavy over the continent of Australia some how this is responsible for lowering the sea level by 7mm.

- and then it recovered by about 10mm per year. Where's the gaping hole?

Where are you getting these figures from, even the IPCC have confirmed a sea level rise of less than 2mm per year.

Don't worry folks sea levels are just doing what they've always done, there will be no Algorian tsunami as the faithful keep telling us.

IPCC estimate less than 2mm per year.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html

Continental mass change from GRACE over 2002–2011 and its impact on sea level (again less than 2mm per year)
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/continental-mass-change-grace-over-2002%E2%...

NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC (again less than 2mm per year)
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.h...

Is There a 60-Year Oscillation in Global Mean Sea Level? (again less than 2mm per year)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052885.shtml

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #54 - Aug 29^th, 2013 at 3:03pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

Where are you getting these figures from, even the IPCC have confirmed a sea level rise of less than 2mm per year.

Well I'm not getting the figures from Internet blogs as you are. Wake up to the fact that these people lie.

Once again, the data is from the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Unit.

Ajax - according to that graph, how much has the sea level jumped by between 2011 and 2013?

Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions." Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.

Quote:

Continental mass change from GRACE over 2002–2011 and its impact on sea level (again less than 2mm per year)

- and the blog makes the same mistake as you do. Can you now see why that isn't the same as Global Mean Sea Level rise?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 29^th, 2013 at 3:47pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 10975 Australia Gender:	Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature Reply #55 - Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:20pm Hey muso when you put your faith in computer models you always stand the chance that when real world data is viewd and compared to the models. You will be shot out of the sky...!!! Have a good landing dude.
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #56 - Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:50pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Hey muso when you put your faith in computer models you always stand the chance that when real world data is viewd and compared to the models.

You will be shot out of the sky...!!!

Have a good landing dude.

You do realise that every single space exploration and space probe has been based upon simulations and modelling of where the planets or moons etc will be in the future?

When you project or interpolate forward in time, you are effectively modelling a process or natural mechanism with respect to time (and space)

this modelling can be empirically based or theoretically based (or a combination of the two)

what were you saying in public again?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10975
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #57 - Aug 29^th, 2013 at 6:04pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

You do realise that every single space exploration and space probe has been based upon simulations and modelling of where the planets or moons etc will be in the future?

When you project or interpolate forward in time, you are effectively modelling a process or natural mechanism with respect to time (and space)

this modelling can be empirically based or theoretically based (or a combination of the two)

what were you saying in public again?

That's fair enough but when your projections don't match real world observations........................???

Not only that but other satellites tell a different story...!!

So why do alarmists chose the worst case always...??

Why cant alarmists say well this satellite data shows the worst case BUT that's BUT there is other data that contradicts this data and so on and so forth......!!!

Bang their very quick to hang out the worst case without even so much as an explanation.

Now what where you saying about presenting in public...??

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scie...

http://web.archive.org/web/20110719173639/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #58 - Aug 29^th, 2013 at 7:44pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Hey muso when you put your faith in computer models you always stand the chance that when real world data is viewd and compared to the models.

These are measurements Ajax. Measurements. The papers you quoted used models to determine the effects of changing continental mass on Global Sea Level.

Jason1 and 2 and Topex have satellite altimeters. If you have a boat, you might be familiar with sonar instruments. Satellite altimeters use microwave pulses instead of sound. It's as close to an absolute measurement as you can get.

Quote:

Not only that but other satellites tell a different story...!!

OTHER satellites ? Grin

What other satellites? Do these satellites float in the ocean perchance? Grin

Do you have personal satellites that nobody else knows about?

This I've got to hear.

You do know that you can drown if you wade too far into the ocean? (out of your depth)

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Catalyst: Taking Our Temperature
Reply #59 - Aug 29^th, 2013 at 7:54pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Hey muso when you put your faith in computer models you always stand the chance that when real world data is viewd and compared to the models.

You will be shot out of the sky...!!!

When you start commenting on things that are out of your depth Ajax, you'll drown. Quit while you're ahead.

Google glacial isostasy and tell me why it's relevant to the video you linked to.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged