Predicting next summer

0 views
Skip to first unread message

hem...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 27, 2005, 12:47:14 AM5/27/05
to
[EL]

<http://www.zapfuture.com/modules.php?name=zPredictions&func=PredictionView&pid=84>

Tell me if this prediction is correct or not please.

EL

Roger Coppock

unread,
May 27, 2005, 2:25:49 AM5/27/05
to
By the phrase "next summer" do you mean Northern hemisphere summer of
2005? If that is so, and if we are talking about the NASA GISS
database that I give monthly reports on in this newsgroup, my back of
the envelope calculation would give this prediction something like1 in
4 odds.

Alastair McDonald

unread,
May 27, 2005, 5:46:28 AM5/27/05
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1117175149.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The prediction was made in April and it has 97 days to run until the end of
August.

I expect it to be very hot in the Northern Hemisphere but without a solar
maximum or an El Nino to boost it, then it may not be an all time record.

OTOH the Arctic ice is still melting quickly. The concentration is at an all
time low for this time of year. Polar explorers have all struggled to reach
the Pole this spring due to the number and width of the leads. Without the
ice to supply the occasional cold draft from the north, then we may all
roast this summer.

Cheers, Alastair.

King Amdo

unread,
May 27, 2005, 7:00:23 AM5/27/05
to
Whoooah! ...another scorcher today!

(Southern England, UK)

..still as least the Ganja will be growing double time!

derrr der derrrrrrrr der der derrrrrrr derrrrrr der,

der derrrr derrrrr der derrr derrr derrr der!

hem...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2005, 11:40:59 AM5/28/05
to
[Alastair McDonald wrote]
[EL]
I appreciate all comments.
I have been tracking some solar activity and reports concerning the
rate of dissipating the total heat gained by earth. This rate shows
that we are constantly gaining thermal energy, and even though it is
may yet, here in Egypt and in the shadow on the eleventh floor, my
indoors (no air-conditioning room) thermometer records up to 34 degrees
Celsius. During June I expect 36 to 38 and during July 40 to 42 in the
shadow. This means that desert outdoors temperature shall reach 54 to
56 degrees Celsius. If we were so unlucky to have a sun-flare, we shall
certainly roast if exposed to direct sunlight for a mere hour.

By the way, what is the officially recorded maximum Northern Hemisphere
temperature in the last 50 years?
Kind regards.
EL

Torsten Brinch

unread,
May 28, 2005, 12:19:57 PM5/28/05
to
On 28 May 2005 08:40:59 -0700, hem...@gmail.com wrote:
>I appreciate all comments.
>I have been tracking some solar activity and reports concerning the
>rate of dissipating the total heat gained by earth. This rate shows
>that we are constantly gaining thermal energy, and even though it is
>may yet, here in Egypt and in the shadow on the eleventh floor, my
>indoors (no air-conditioning room) thermometer records up to 34 degrees
>Celsius. During June I expect 36 to 38 and during July 40 to 42 in the
>shadow. This means that desert outdoors temperature shall reach 54 to
>56 degrees Celsius. If we were so unlucky to have a sun-flare, we shall
>certainly roast if exposed to direct sunlight for a mere hour.
>
>By the way, what is the officially recorded maximum Northern Hemisphere
>temperature in the last 50 years?

I don't know, but if you get to 54-56 degrees Celsius it would likely
be a candidate! (According to NOAA, ~58 degrees Celsius is the
highest temperature ever measured on Earth, this record being set
in Libya in 1922, and not seriously threatened since.)

Alastair McDonald

unread,
May 28, 2005, 12:33:42 PM5/28/05
to

<hem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117294859.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

According to this link the highest temperature ever recorded was in Pakistan
which is in the NH. It was 120F, 49C
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2001/20020524.htm

Cheers, Alastair.


Alastair McDonald

unread,
May 28, 2005, 12:39:01 PM5/28/05
to
I didn't read that link correctly. It says

... the hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere on the globe (136 F at Al'
Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922)

That is 58C.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
in message news:d7a639$6ht$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Torsten Brinch

unread,
May 28, 2005, 1:37:04 PM5/28/05
to
On Sat, 28 May 2005 17:39:01 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>... the hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere on the globe (136 F at Al'
>Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922)
>
>That is 58C.

That's bl**dy hot.

Up here north this afternoon we reached a rather pleasant 30.4 degrees
Celsius (the hottest temperature measured in May in 60 years.)

Joshua Halpern

unread,
May 28, 2005, 4:04:53 PM5/28/05
to
Alastair McDonald wrote:
> I didn't read that link correctly. It says
>
> ... the hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere on the globe (136 F at Al'
> Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922)
>
> That is 58C.

Of course, that is behind a Stevenson screen, which means that it could
have easily been 70-80 C out in the sun, especially in a depression.

josh halpern

hem...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2005, 5:34:07 PM5/28/05
to
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> Alastair McDonald wrote:
> > I didn't read that link correctly. It says
> >
> > ... the hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere on the globe (136 F at Al'
> > Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922)
> >
> > That is 58C.
>
> Of course, that is behind a Stevenson screen, which means that it could
> have easily been 70-80 C out in the sun, especially in a depression.
>
> josh halpern

[EL]
Indeed; there are many types of thermal recordings set by the
Agriculture Scientific Committees as well as the Weather Forecasting
Bureaus. Sea level measurements at coastlines is usually taken as best
standard, but then there is shadow, screened and direct exposure, where
those are air readings, then there is cultivated soil where depth of
measurement is specified, and finally desert readings are two types,
air is one and surface sand dipped tips is another, where that last
measurement can hit the 90 C mark in the Great Sahara at the valley of
reflective sand dunes and concave depressions. In fact, in Upper Egypt
they use direct sunshine hitting sand surface as a roaster for peanuts,
cooking bread and cooking eggs too.
However, my concerns are strictly about the last 50 years of thermal
records of the Northern Hemisphere.
A quick annual comparison reflects early heat or simply higher
temperatures now when comparing that of the same dates for the last 50
years.
I was worried if I found myself overreacting, but perhaps others might
share my views and a discussion might expose consequences that might
turn out to be dramatic within an environmental context.

EL

charliew2

unread,
May 30, 2005, 6:15:44 PM5/30/05
to

<hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117169234.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> [EL]
>
>
<http://www.zapfuture.com/modules.php?name=zPredictions&func=PredictionView&

pid=84>
>
> Tell me if this prediction is correct or not please.
>
> EL
>

The correct question is: Where will this prediction be correct?

There is always some place on earth for which this prediction will be
correct. Characterising the problem well enough to attribute it to global
warming, and especially man-made global warming, is somewhat more
problematic.


hem...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2005, 4:35:35 AM5/31/05
to
[charliew2 wrote]

> > Tell me if this prediction is correct or not please.
> > EL
>
> The correct question is: Where will this prediction be correct?
>
> There is always some place on earth for which this prediction will be
> correct. Characterising the problem well enough to attribute it to global
> warming, and especially man-made global warming, is somewhat more
> problematic.
[EL]
Yes, indeed, I assumed too much.
My reference of choice is the Egyptian Western Desert due to many
reasons that I hope are obvious.
However, you are absolutely correct in guessing that my final target is
rather a global average temperature during July and August of this
current year.
I simply chose the time when earth is closest to the sun, then I
projected the new facts about the changes of rates between gaining
energy from the sun and dissipating that energy on the dark side during
spin.
The new data shows that that rate ratio changed in favour of gaining
energy.
I am counting on any random activity in the sun, such as a flare, to
boost the figures to emphasize the disaster.
If my prediction was correct then I would like to suggest that
industrial countries, especially the USA, should seek a technical
method of recycling the energy released by industry to contain it
rather than giving way to heat the atmosphere.
With a rising global average temperature the atmospheric tolerance to
humidity shall increase and the total kinetic energy manifested by
atmospheric phenomena can grow disastrous.
I did not figure out what exactly may happen as a consequence, because
it is too complex to guess or calculate on a desktop, when the most
sophisticated main frames can barely predict it.

All I know that I intuitively feel bad about global warming because
that would certainly move the global point of energy equilibrium, which
we are used to since we were born.
Melting Icebergs, rising oceans, tectonic movements, volcanic
eruptions, and more earthquakes and tornados are the closest that one
can enumerate, but are those not enough! :-)

EL

charliew2

unread,
May 31, 2005, 9:52:20 AM5/31/05
to

<hem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117528535.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

This isn't possible, for thermodynamic reasons. Further, since all
industrial energy use eventually ends up as low level heat, the ways to
reduce energy released by industry are:

* become more efficient, releasing less heat
* change processes to something less energy intensive
* deliberately produce less and charge more

For various economic and technical reasons, the above 3 objectives are very
difficult to achieve.

James Annan

unread,
May 31, 2005, 9:38:36 PM5/31/05
to

charliew2 wrote:

> This isn't possible, for thermodynamic reasons. Further, since all
> industrial energy use eventually ends up as low level heat, the ways to
> reduce energy released by industry are:
>
> * become more efficient, releasing less heat
> * change processes to something less energy intensive
> * deliberately produce less and charge more
>
> For various economic and technical reasons, the above 3 objectives are very
> difficult to achieve.

The UK's GDP per barrel of oil is double that of the USA.

James

charliew2

unread,
May 31, 2005, 11:22:41 PM5/31/05
to

"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117589916.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

OK, James, let's not use ONE statistic to refute an argument. Without
knowing how GDP per barrel of oil is measured in both countries, I can't be
sure that your comment has much relevance. One thing that I can be sure
of - gasoline prices in the UK are MUCH higher than those in the U.S., and
autos in the U.K. are correspondingly much smaller and have much higher
miles per gallon because of those higher prices. If U.S. gasoline prices
are not doubled or tripled, I will stand by my statement that my three "*"
comments noted above will be very difficult to achieve, based on economic
reasons.


James Annan

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 1:45:05 AM6/1/05
to

charliew2 wrote:
> "James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117589916.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > charliew2 wrote:
> >
> > > This isn't possible, for thermodynamic reasons. Further, since all
> > > industrial energy use eventually ends up as low level heat, the ways to
> > > reduce energy released by industry are:
> > >
> > > * become more efficient, releasing less heat
> > > * change processes to something less energy intensive
> > > * deliberately produce less and charge more
> > >
> > > For various economic and technical reasons, the above 3 objectives are
> very
> > > difficult to achieve.
> >
> > The UK's GDP per barrel of oil is double that of the USA.
> >
> > James
> >
>
> OK, James, let's not use ONE statistic to refute an argument. Without
> knowing how GDP per barrel of oil is measured in both countries, I can't be
> sure that your comment has much relevance.

Well, I suspect it was calculated by..um...dividing the GDP by the oil
consumption. Of course it could have been based on the number of
bananas that fit in a bath, but in that case I'd have expected it to be
described as such.

> One thing that I can be sure
> of - gasoline prices in the UK are MUCH higher than those in the U.S., and
> autos in the U.K. are correspondingly much smaller and have much higher
> miles per gallon because of those higher prices. If U.S. gasoline prices
> are not doubled or tripled, I will stand by my statement that my three "*"
> comments noted above will be very difficult to achieve, based on economic
> reasons.

um...that seems like a new, qualified version of your original
statement.

Of course transport is only around half of all oil consumption (maybe
more in the USA), so even if auto efficiency was doubled overnight,
that would only claw back a part of the difference between the USA and
UK. I guess we'd better just shrug our shoulders and ignore it though.

James

charliew2

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 1:53:15 AM6/1/05
to

"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117604705....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

You're way too smart to play the "dumb shit", James. GDP is based on both
the industrial sector AND the service sector of an economy. Without knowing
quite a bit more about how both economies are laid out, it's very difficult
to compare apples to apples and simultaneously draw a relevant conclusion
regarding GDP per barrel of oil. I'm sure you already know that, but you
seem to be trying to make a point.

Of course, I realize that I am currently your "pet project", so go for it.

>
> > One thing that I can be sure
> > of - gasoline prices in the UK are MUCH higher than those in the U.S.,
and
> > autos in the U.K. are correspondingly much smaller and have much higher
> > miles per gallon because of those higher prices. If U.S. gasoline
prices
> > are not doubled or tripled, I will stand by my statement that my three
"*"
> > comments noted above will be very difficult to achieve, based on
economic
> > reasons.
>
> um...that seems like a new, qualified version of your original
> statement.

It's not my fault that you can't properly interpret the term "economic".

>
> Of course transport is only around half of all oil consumption (maybe
> more in the USA), so even if auto efficiency was doubled overnight,
> that would only claw back a part of the difference between the USA and
> UK. I guess we'd better just shrug our shoulders and ignore it though.

So, you admit that the differences in the two economies require more careful
analysis before your blanket statement carries any relevance?

>
> James
>


James Annan

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 3:09:50 AM6/1/05
to
charliew2 wrote:

> Of course, I realize that I am currently your "pet project", so go for it.

Don't flatter yourself. But I have to amuse myself somehow, and it is
either here or reading wmc's blog:

http://lfw.org/jminc/waffle/http://mustelid.blogspot.com/

> > Of course transport is only around half of all oil consumption (maybe
> > more in the USA), so even if auto efficiency was doubled overnight,
> > that would only claw back a part of the difference between the USA and
> > UK. I guess we'd better just shrug our shoulders and ignore it though.
>
> So, you admit that the differences in the two economies require more careful
> analysis before your blanket statement carries any relevance?
>

>From where I'm sitting, it looked like you were the one making the
blanket statement ("For various economic and technical reasons, the
above 3 objectives are very difficult to achieve.") and I was the one
with the rather elementary analysis pointing out how even within the
straightjacket of a conventional western economy, a mere doubling of
efficiency relative to the USA has already been achieved under real
world conditions.

James

hem...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 7:22:34 AM6/1/05
to
[James Annan wrote]

> >From where I'm sitting, it looked like you were the one making the
> blanket statement ("For various economic and technical reasons, the
> above 3 objectives are very difficult to achieve.") and I was the one
> with the rather elementary analysis pointing out how even within the
> straightjacket of a conventional western economy, a mere doubling of
> efficiency relative to the USA has already been achieved under real
> world conditions.
>
> James

[EL]
Dear James,
I agree with you, not that I am statistically aware of what you claim
but for another reason.
Energy has many forms that are not necessarily heat producing as its
final stage.
I was thinking more in the direction of including energy recycling
technology to make the final stage become mechanical energy or even
stored as electric energy or chemical energy like nature does with
photosynthesis.
The USA is still taking the Global warming problem very lightly because
strategic analysis demand from politicians to take decisions to have an
upper hand economically and militaristically. Once this strategy was
secured, they might reconsider the G8 proposals, especially those of
Japan. In fact, some decision makers do not even care if disasters
annihilate millions of humans, and then they would say, "Let nature
take care of itself."
Global warming does not only melt ice, but also saturates air with more
water vapour. The probability of rain and floods would then increase,
and nature does dissipate the extra energy into devastating mechanical
phenomena.
Decision makers, leave their air-conditioned homes in their
air-conditioned cars to their air-conditioned offices.
So it is obvious that they care less about killer heat, tsunami,
tornadoes or whatever.
To force them to make more sympathising decisions will not come cheap.
Let us hope, for starters, that no more nuclear detonation experiments
will ever take place on earth again.
Then let us hope for a global massive agricultural reform by replanting
all the woods that were cut down and increase the green surface to
absorb as much heat as plantation can.
Both ideas are very economic, because we can take the money invested in
nuclear weaponry and invest it in planting woods and more farms.

Then we have the OZONE hole problem and abiding by the regulations that
inhibits the usage gases that helps widening the southern hole. We can
invest some of the energy by analysing water electrically and combining
hydrogen and carbon while releasing oxygen. This idea can be a
regulation to be added to every air-conditioner ever built.

There are many ideas I have no clue about out there, but the beginning
is when the governments realise that something must be done before it
is too late.

EL

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages