New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier

Jul 28, 2014
New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
This is a color enhanced satellite image of upper tropospheric water vapor. Credit: NASA

A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere – a key amplifier of global warming – will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.

"The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased in the upper troposphere," said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.

To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in could be explained by natural or man-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased , such as CO2.

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping the Earth's radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.

This is an illustration of annual mean T2-T12 field that provides a direct measure of the upper-tropospheric water vapor. Purple = dry and Red = moist. Credit: Eui-Seok Chung, Ph.D., UM Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises the Earth's temperature.

Explore further: Measuring the effect of water vapor on climate warming

More information: PNAS. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1409659111

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Measuring the effect of water vapor on climate warming

Mar 18, 2014

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, the concentration of water vapor increases with the temperature, setting up a powerful positive feedback loop. This water vapor feedback is the strongest known positive ...

Water vapor confirmed as major player in climate change

Nov 17, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated ...

Water in stratosphere plays key role in Earth's climate

Oct 03, 2013

Water vapor changes in the stratosphere contribute to warmer temperatures and likely play an important role in the evolution of Earth's climate, says a research team led by a Texas A&M University professor.

NASA/NOAA water vapor animations over oceans

Jun 26, 2014

Knowing where water vapor is in the atmosphere is one of many factors forecasters use to identify weather features. The NASA/NOAA GOES Project has now created two new types of animations based on satellite ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Egypt River Delta

13 hours ago

This NASA satellite image is of the Egyptian River Delta. Actively burning areas, detected by MODIS's thermal bands, are outlined in red. Each hot spot, which appears as a red mark, is an area where the thermal ...

Terra Satellite sees Tropical Storm Ana over Hawaii

13 hours ago

Tropical Storm Ana made a slow track west of the Hawaiian islands over the last couple of days, and by Oct. 20 was moving westward away from the main Hawaiian islands and heading toward the northwest Hawaiian ...

User comments : 188

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2014
Hey Alchemist - you paying attention?
orti
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 28, 2014
So why virtually no warming for the past 17 years in the real atmosphere, not a computer model as used here -- modeling problems?
shavera
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 28, 2014
Because Orti, if you take a little look-see at the Earth, you'll see an awful big part of it is this wet stuff we call "water." Now water is a very special kind of liquid. It's what you may drink. Or may swim in. And water tends to warm up when the sun shines on it. Over the past few years, the water has gotten warmer and warmer, even though the surface temperatures haven't risen as dramatically. But like all kinds of heat, eventually that heat will return to the surface and into the atmosphere.
orti
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 28, 2014
... at least in the lower troposphere. How much in the upper (which I assume 3-7 miles is), and how does that affect the lower?
BTW: Snarky replies only represent the character of the replier.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 28, 2014
Hey Alchemist - you paying attention?


Ditto: Hey Alche, did you win the $30K for falsifying AGW? Does your model track this?
orti
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2014
Also, why does more water vapor in the 3-7 mile range automatically imply higher temperature there or here? Water at these altitudes implies high and mid-level clouds which increase albedo. Where's the numbers?
Dr_toad
Jul 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (17) Jul 28, 2014
... at least in the lower troposphere. How much in the upper (which I assume 3-7 miles is), and how does that affect the lower?
BTW: Snarky replies only represent the character of the replier.


If you tried to understand the models you would figure out that the atmosphere is not a homogeneous blob (unlike Alche's model) and is, stratified in temperature and water vapor. That is known as "lapse rate." The interesting thing about the models is that they show how each layer communicates upwards and downwards with the layers around it (through transport of both mass and energy). What that shows is that layers are influenced by layers that are remote to them. Hence the upper atmosphere is affected by the lower atmosphere as well as outer space. The models are not simple because they show these relationships. If you ever tried to understand one you would realize that simplistic assumptions (such as 3-7 miles up isn't affected by the lower atmosphere and surface) are wrong.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2014
Orti said:
Also, why does more water vapor in the 3-7 mile range automatically imply higher temperature there or here? Water at these altitudes implies high and mid-level clouds which increase albedo. Where's the numbers?


Dufus, clouds appear when the humidity hits saturation. Are you thinking that we should just be clouded over like Venus because we have water vapor in the air? Have you ever taken a course that included psychrometry?

http://en.wikiped...ometrics

Read it and then get back to us.
Arties
1.6 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2014
study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
The water vapor reflects the light and heat, when it's present in form of clouds.
Dr_toad
Jul 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2014
Arties said:
study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
The water vapor reflects the light and heat, when it's present in form of clouds.


Pop quiz for you.

1) Do clouds absorb and emit EM radiation equally at all wavelengths?

2) What is the sum of reflectance, absorptance, and transmittance?

3) Have you ever heard of "scattering?" Does that have any effect with respect to clouds?

4) Is fog similar to a cloud?

5) Can you see during the daylight when there is fog or cloud cover?

6) Do clouds warm you or cool you?

I hope you do well on the quiz.
orti
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 28, 2014
Thermo, at 20000ft (4 miles), water freezes and forms Ice crystal clouds. I doubt there is much water vapor left.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (20) Jul 28, 2014
Obviously the only answer is to tax water and do everything we can do to eliminate it.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2014
Obviously the only answer is to tax water and do everything we can do to eliminate it.


Cantdrive: I was waiting for you to show up.

Here is a webinar made just for you.

http://www.global...ntId=625

Since you claim that astrophysicists don't have a clue about space, here is a webinar on EM simulations for space sciences.

Take a look, harass them, and report back.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (13) Jul 28, 2014
Thermo, at 20000ft (4 miles), water freezes and forms Ice crystal clouds. I doubt there is much water vapor left.


Wow, you are correct. There is not much water vapor at heights near 20000 ft. However, what is taking place is that there is still IR transport between CO2 and lower levels of H2O. You may not recognize it, but you have just hit on one of the major flaws of the anti-AGW argument. The deniers say that all of the IR absorbed by CO2 happens at low altitudes and therefor there is no additional absorption above the lower layers. Of course they don't recognize that each layer also radiates. So, at the altitudes you are talking about the IR would go straight through to space if there were no CO2 there to absorb (and reradiate it) since the water vapor is, essentially, gone. Thanks for coming over to the AGW side.
jonekat
1.2 / 5 (16) Jul 28, 2014
7 billion humans exhale a boat load of water vapor everyday.

OK everyone stop breathing for 20 minutes 3 times a day and we can beat this imaginary global warming thing ;0)

Ok would someone please build a model to prove my theory correct, and if it doesn't fit the first time just keep tweaking it until it does, probably some grant money to be had for this idea
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2014
Obviously the only answer is to tax water and do everything we can do to eliminate it.


Cantdrive: I was waiting for you to show up.

Here is a webinar made just for you.

http://www.global...ntId=625

Since you claim that astrophysicists don't have a clue about space, here is a webinar on EM simulations for space sciences.

Take a look, harass them, and report back.

Yep, and I see they don't employ an astrophysicist to perform the simulations, but an electronic engineer. Weird. I also don't see how it's pertinent to the discussion in any way shape or form.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2014
I got to hand it to the AGW Cult of the Computer Models, they are very good at creating more fodder for their hungry Chicken Littles.
So, the sky is not just falling, it's also very moist.

Meanwhile, the real world is cooling.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2014
@Thermodumbonics
I see you stuck around long enough for the down vote, but no response after making yourself look like a jackass.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2014
@Thermodumbonics
I see you stuck around long enough for the down vote, but no response after making yourself look like a jackass.


There are a number of you who just aren't worth commenting on. You and your electronic universe are one. I gave you a link for those who actually model the electronic universe as it really is (not your electrically driven stars). So, you have a chance to make your comments on their webinar and help them understand how the universe works. What do you do? Complain.
Egleton
5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
I

Meanwhile, the real world is cooling.

No it is not.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2014
There are a number of you who just aren't worth commenting on.


Yet, there you are...

Cantdrive: I was waiting for you to show up.


Does that mean you're going to stalk me like Captain Stupid and his merry band of jock puppets?

https://sciencex....5/?v=act

Of course you are.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2014

BTW: Snarky replies only represent the character of the replier.


No it doesn't... in my case anyway.
It represents the extreme frustration of having to rebut the same ignorant opinion on here, time after ffffing time.
It would wear down a saint my friend.
I do it coz the ignorant shall not win, while I know different.
Cue "appeal to authority" and around the goldfish bowl we go again.
FFS
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2014
Thermo, at 20000ft (4 miles), water freezes and forms Ice crystal clouds. I doubt there is much water vapor left.


FYI Ice crystal also absorbs/re-emits terrestrial IR.
Many, many times during my career I observed (and sometimes had to deal with the consequences of) RST's (road surface temps) being affected by Cirrus cloud - ice cloud at temps of ~MS40C.
A patch of said cloud can and does alter a road temp by up to 0.5C (in my experience). when that road surface is near/below zero.
That is back-radiated IR (originating from the Earth's surface) travelling to ~30,000ft and getting re-emitted back down (also think inverse square law there).

http://www.iac.et.../cirrus/
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2014
Thermo, at 20000ft (4 miles), water freezes and forms Ice crystal clouds. I doubt there is much water vapor left.


FYI Ice crystal also absorbs/re-emits terrestrial IR.
Many, many times during my career I observed (and sometimes had to deal with the consequences of) RST's (road surface temps) being affected by Cirrus cloud - ice cloud at temps of ~MS40C.
A patch of said cloud can and does alter a road temp by up to 0.5C (in my experience). when that road surface is near/below zero.
That is back-radiated IR (originating from the Earth's surface) travelling to ~30,000ft and getting re-emitted back down (also think inverse square law there).

http://www.iac.et.../cirrus/


Run: Thank you for this information. I was not even aware of this level of influence.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2014
Run: Thank you for this information. I was not even aware of this level of influence.

Thermo:

Yep, this was always a pain in the arse on cold winters' nights when I had to monitor ~50 RST's sites around the English Midlands. We would predict a RST graph (based on forecast ave conditions) and send to councils in the afternoon for gritting ops and we had to amend them if they crossed zero outside of specified limits.
The appearance/disappearance of a thick patch of Cirrus could make my N shifts a nightmare.
No, there is no GHG effect. Contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
Try arguing that with me on one of those nights sunshine.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
Run laughingly said:
No, there is no GHG effect. Contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
Try arguing that with me on one of those nights sunshine.


It is a good thing you can keep your sense of humor with these clods that don't understand radiant heat transfer. I appreciate the work you keep putting in and I have learned a lot from your posts. Please keep up the great work.
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
@thermodynamics
Take a look, harass them, and report back.


Awesome!
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
@thermodynamics
Take a look, harass them, and report back.


Awesome!


Cantdrive got a little snitty, but I think we all want to find out how his lecture goes over as he sets them straight.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2014
Run laughingly said:
No, there is no GHG effect. Contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
Try arguing that with me on one of those nights sunshine.


It is a good thing you can keep your sense of humor with these clods that don't understand radiant heat transfer. I appreciate the work you keep putting in and I have learned a lot from your posts. Please keep up the great work.

Cheers... likewise me with yours.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2014
We must now have a water vapor credit trading company run by Profit Al Gore. We must limit the amount of water vapor each country produces. We should increase taxes on anything that increases water vapor. We need to have water vapor conferences at exotic location at super expensive resorts, where the "Environmental leaders" of the world can get together and discuss how to limit water vapor, while they dine on endangered animals, drive luxury cars, fly private jets (or at least first class)...... long live the AGW cult.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2014
7 billion humans exhale a boat load of water vapor everyday.

OK everyone stop breathing for 20 minutes 3 times a day...

Simple answer to that - everyone take more naps...
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2014
We must now have a water vapor credit trading company run by Profit Al Gore. We must limit the amount of water vapor each country produces. We should increase taxes on anything that increases water vapor. We need to have water vapor conferences at exotic location at super expensive resorts, where the "Environmental leaders" of the world can get together and discuss how to limit water vapor, while they dine on endangered animals, drive luxury cars, fly private jets (or at least first class)...... long live the AGW cult.

You'd have to go a long way sunshine to out do what WV the Oceans evaporate into the atmosphere (>70% Earth's surface). Also the average length of an H2O molecule is ~10days in the atmosphere. Which is why WV is self regulating - IT RAINS OUT.
I do hope you were joking. If not well.....FFS
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2014
The real question is what correlates better to historical temps, CO2 or water vapor? Oh look, a graph:
http://earthobser...do_3.php
So does that mean water vapor is the cause of AGW?

Honestly though, I'm sure every GHG follows along with global temperatures pretty nice. Why is CO2 the only one that we worry about?

Wait, more graphs!
http://arctic-new...ppb.html

Looks like methane fits the bill too...
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2014
Scroofinator
The real question is what correlates better to historical temps, CO2 or water vapor? Oh look, a graph:


Why is that the 'real' question? What if they both correlate very highly? What do you think that means?

Your graph did not answer the 'real' question - just showed that in a one year period - over the northern BOREAS old spruce site - there is a very high correlation between air temperature, and water vapor pressure. What do you think this means in terms of the big picture of climate change - and where did you get your data to support this conclusion?

Here is a 400,000 year correlation between global C02 levels - and global temperatures.

http://www.grida....057.aspx

Sometimes temp lags C02, and sometimes vice versa. I guess we should ask the folks studying the climate for a full understanding of this relationship.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2014
Antigoracle.
Meanwhile, the real world is cooling.


No it is not - and just because you say it over and over - does not change the facts.

If the world is cooling - wonder where all this methane is coming from - http://www.dailyk...ctic-Sea

Maybe the methane ice is melting - due to the lower temperatures that you report.

I know - I know - this is just one piece of the puzzle - but the whole puzzle is telling us that the system is warming. I don't mind that you want to put your head in the sand - just wish you would not spread lies and FUD.
Grendel
1.1 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
I honestly don't understand why human sources of CO2 are seen as so easily overwhelming the entire atmosphere, when what we produce must be a small fraction of what's present, and even that in constantly changing percentages. Is the atmospheric balance that precarious? Are the natural feedback mechanisms really that fragile? I'd more readily accept these many models if we knew say, what causes and ends ice ages. We can't accurately predict next winter's snow totals yet we're expected to accept warming predictions a century out?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2014
We can't accurately predict next winter's snow totals yet we're expected to accept warming predictions a century out?


Oh wow - we have never heard that line before (sarcasm). Grendel - you need to team up with Scroofinator - form you own science association. The association for deciding what is happening in the climate - based on our own personal conjecture.

Here is a good link - http://www.ucsusa...faq.html
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2014
I honestly don't understand why human sources of CO2 are seen as so easily overwhelming the entire atmosphere, when what we produce must be a small fraction of what's present, and even that in constantly changing percentages. Is the atmospheric balance that precarious? Are the natural feedback mechanisms really that fragile? I'd more readily accept these many models if we knew say, what causes and ends ice ages. We can't accurately predict next winter's snow totals yet we're expected to accept warming predictions a century out?


Grendel: I am giving you the benefit of a doubt because you say you really do want to understand some of these things.

Let me start with the current theory on ice ages and warm periods in geological time frames.

http://en.wikiped...h_cycles

This gives you an overview of why there are large swings in temperature on a geological scale.

Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
Grendel asked:
Is the atmospheric balance that precarious?


Yes, it is. Take a look at the Keeling curve:

https://scripps.u...ngcurve/

http://scrippsco2...ons.html

You are right about the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere being a small fraction of the CO2 exchanges in the atmosphere. However, the CO2 content had been balanced until we started burning fossil fuels and deforesting. Now the CO2 content is inching up in proportion to the amount of CO2 we have been adding. This is known as a net (marginal) increase in the total CO2 in the atmosphere. If we were not adding an unnatural component the content (mixing ratio) would oscillate around a constant value (as it did prior to industrialization). Our contribution is responsible for the change we are seeing.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2014
Continued:
I honestly don't understand why human sources of CO2 are seen as so easily overwhelming the entire atmosphere


The atmosphere is made up of oxygen, nitrogen, and argon as well as trace gases and water vapor.

Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are transparent to infrared radiation. If we did not have water vapor and the trace gases the earth would be much colder because the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon would not prevent the loss of infrared to space.

http://en.wikiped...of_Earth

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but it is limited in altitude (due to condensation) and variable (due to the ability to condense with drops in temperature or changes in pressure).

Most of what is left is CO2 (as you can see from the link above).

So, when people tell you that CO2 is a minor constituent they are leaving out the fact that CO2 is the major IR absorber at high altitudes and absorbs at different wave lengths that water vapor. Cont
jonekat
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2014
However, the CO2 content had been balanced until we started burning fossil fuels and deforesting.


That is a steaming heap of BS. The CO2 content in the atmosphere has gone up and down as much as the temperature has from ice age to interglacial, long before freddy flintstone was driving his rock tire hummer
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
Cont: There is a fallacy that water vapor covers the same "bands" as CO2 and, therefore CO2 cannot have any effect. The reality is that CO2 has an interesting band at 15 um that H2O has little influence over until you get out to the wings about 17 um. That is right in the terrestrial emission zone.

For details on emissions I recommend you read the comments here:

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Please start from the oldest first and you will be able to follow a discussion on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Let me know if there are any questions.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2014
jonekat politely added:
However, the CO2 content had been balanced until we started burning fossil fuels and deforesting.


That is a steaming heap of BS. The CO2 content in the atmosphere has gone up and down as much as the temperature has from ice age to interglacial, long before freddy flintstone was driving his rock tire hummer


Let me rephrase. The recent (800,000 years) CO2 content...

Thank you for your kind comments and pointing out that over geological times there has been variation. However, as I showed in the Scripts Keeling curve it has bounced around 225 ppm for about 800,000 years. It is now at 400 ppm which it has not come close to in 800,000 years. Did you just not bother to look at the curve or are you just tossing around dumb remarks?
jonekat
1.4 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2014
Just like a 125ish year temp record isn't long enough to predict anything, 800.000 years is also a tiny slice and really doesn't say much

Look back to the Miocene epoch, temps 11C higher than today, CO2 as high if not higher, and the earth could have been described as the garden of eden, one of the most productive times in earth's history..... pole to pole green

why do people think as we approach those conditions again the the planet is going to turn into a fireball, more then once we have been at those optimal conditions only to have the ice take it all away

And try not to be so sensitive thermodynamics, it is the internet after all ;0)
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2014
Using the set of climate model experiments

Q: Why are the results of all the AGW Cult's climate models such fabrications and complete deceit?
A: It's because they are all based on the same al.gor.e.dumb.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2014
So antigoracle once again brings up Al Gore - but of course does not answer the lie that he/she just posted on a science web site - that the globe is cooling. Al Gore would know a lot better than to tell that stupid a lie.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
So antigoracle once again brings up Al Gore - but of course does not answer the lie that he/she just posted on a science web site - that the globe is cooling. Al Gore would know a lot better than to tell that stupid a lie.


Politicians never lie. ROTFLMAO

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2014
So antigoracle once again brings up Al Gore - but of course does not answer the lie that he/she just posted on a science web site - that the globe is cooling. Al Gore would know a lot better than to tell that stupid a lie.


Politicians never lie. ROTFLMAO

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

I'm sorry but yet again I see the flawed psychological process in the deniers mind.

Which is....
Because politicians (sometimes) lie ... they always do, or at least are on this matter.

It's the same thinking I've constantly come up against....
Weather forecasters/forecast is ..."always wrong".

To which the logical reply is (passes em by completely)

"That's just as impossible as being always RIGHT"

If you see the logic in that then you are NOT a denier.

For the deniers on here I will explain if you ask nicely.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
Q: Why are the AGW Chicken Littles so ignorant?
A: Because they believe in the al.gor.e.dumb.
Canute
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
As ice sheets retreat, sea levels rise and the albedo falls. The oceans get warmer, evaporate more water which initially is has a positive feedback. However, every previous ice age has resulted in sea levels dropping 400 feet. How did so much water end up as ice at the poles except by the massive formation of clouds? What is the net effect of clouds according to NOAA - increased albedo and cooling.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
So antigoracle once again brings up Al Gore - but of course does not answer the lie that he/she just posted on a science web site - that the globe is cooling. Al Gore would know a lot better than to tell that stupid a lie.

So strange, how about the lie that CO2 leads temperature?
https://www.youtu...qQ_iI7qQ

Sure your Profit Al may know better, but you leave no doubt that you don't.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
As ice sheets retreat, sea levels rise and the albedo falls. The oceans get warmer, evaporate more water which initially is has a positive feedback. However, every previous ice age has resulted in sea levels dropping 400 feet. How did so much water end up as ice at the poles except by the massive formation of clouds? What is the net effect of clouds according to NOAA - increased albedo and cooling.


The removed 400ft of ocean was deposited as snow over northern land masses - this barely melting except at the edges during summer.
It did not happen via "massive formation of clouds". Physically this cannot/does not happen. There is only so much WV/H2O that the atmosphere can hold, indeed as it gets colder it can hold less. This is because due the short length of the water cycle (~10days) it is self-regulating. The RH (rel hum) stays the same.
The process of Seas dropping 400ft took millenia.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
So antigoracle once again brings up Al Gore - but of course does not answer the lie that he/she just posted on a science web site - that the globe is cooling. Al Gore would know a lot better than to tell that stupid a lie.

So strange, how about the lie that CO2 leads temperature?
https://www.youtu...qQ_iI7qQ

Sure your Profit Al may know better, but you leave no doubt that you don't.


The only lie there sunshine is the one coming from your brain cell via your fingers and spamming this site....

For the hard of comprehension...
www.youtube.com/w...BIzBORHw

For the sensible and those wanting to learn....
http://www.youtub...8_kiDUck

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
The process of Seas dropping 400ft took millenia.

So did the process of developing glaciers and massive ice sheets of last major ice age....
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
Wow, runrig did you leave any Kool-Aid for the other Chicken Littles.
The TRUE climate science shows CO2 increasing while temperature is falling, so only in your tiny brain and computer models does CO2 drive temperature. Your False Profit Al clearly shows CO2 leading temperature.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2014
Your graph did not answer the 'real' question - just showed that in a one year period - over the northern BOREAS old spruce site - there is a very high correlation between air temperature, and water vapor pressure. What do you think this means in terms of the big picture of climate change - and where did you get your data to support this conclusion?


I was being sarcastic. Just because we have graphs that correlate, it doesn't mean the answer is that simple. All GHGs correlate to temps over time, all influence climate, and none can explain that 400k year temp vs CO2 graph you posted.

AGWs models are proof of that.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
AntiEm said:
The TRUE climate science shows CO2 increasing while temperature is falling, so only in your tiny brain and computer models does CO2 drive temperature.


Am I reading this right. Are you really saying the temperature of the earth is falling?

Are you trying to tell us that the earth's enthalpy is dropping?

Can you give us a link to this extraordinary claim?

I suspect that you don't even know what I have said or how to answer the question.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
Wow, runrig did you leave any Kool-Aid for the other Chicken Littles.
The TRUE climate science shows CO2 increasing while temperature is falling, so only in your tiny brain and computer models does CO2 drive temperature. Your False Profit Al clearly shows CO2 leading temperature.
What is it about which comes first the, chicken or the egg, do you not understand about when something is a driver or a feed-back?
This has proved to me that you are NOT obtuse. Not even the village idit could fail top comprehend that what matters is what comes first here.
No - you are obviously a paid Troll. Who's only objective is to muddy the waters and make the ignorant masses doubt the science. Because unfortunately the science requires some thought. It is NOT one dimensional. I care not a jot sunshine. You will not however have your ignorance as the last word on here while I can help it. FYI: I have no prophet, false or otherwise. You keep forgetting. I am an expert and know things. Shame eh?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
Mr Goracle:
I can argue you out of the water with the science whilst you make an idiot of yourself stating black is white over it.
Do what you want, it's a free world.
There's nothing to stop idiots with an agenda spouting lies.
There's nothing to stop idiots abhorring science when it does not agree with their opinion.
There's nothing to stop idiots who hold in contempt those that know said science, and who when speaking "appeal to authority" (obviously as when as an expert )... and so a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So Troll away my friend and while you're at it, do have a nice life, wherever it is lived... I'm sure you'll be happy so long as your "tax dollars" are still in your pocket ... and f**k the rest.
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
respected by those who have eyes to see and ears to listen.


Getting biblical huh? Didn't think your crowd swung that way. Science prophets... a scary concept.

This isn't a dig on runrig, he's one of the few here that I would actually care to have a conversation with.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2014
respected by those who have eyes to see and ears to listen.


Getting biblical huh? Didn't think your crowd swung that way. Science prophets... a scary concept.

This isn't a dig on runrig, he's one of the few here that I would actually care to have a conversation with.

Thanks for that little scrap.

i think it easy to forget that there are real people behind these posts.... and who am I to analyse too much.
We all have our "own poisons". That is things we pehaps shouldn't do but cant help ourselves.
Walk a mile in that persons shoes eh?

I am a reasonable person, just someone who camnot find fault in both the science and the common sense of following it.
Look just argue on what needs doing and what first.
The time has come for you guys to move on.
You don't know whether to deny warming and say cooling (Anti), deny even empirical science of the "against 2nd Law thermodynamics" sort/GHG's always follow (Anti) or admit it and say it's not bad.
Schizophrenic or what?
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2014
Look just argue on what needs doing and what first.

Very well sir...

The Sun forms magnetic "portals" with the Earth, so we know that the two are intrinsically linked electromagnetically.
http://science.na...ct_ftes/
With that in mind, I don't understand why it's so hard to conceive that the Sun's weakening magnetic field is causing Earth's to weaken as well?

We can assume Venus is also linked to the Sun, and it's weather has been intensifying for the last 8 years.
http://www.esa.in...g_faster
This leads me to conclude that a weaker magnetosphere allows for more intense weather. A shifting magnetic north is likely playing a role too, I suspect the ocean feels it significantly.

So first, what we need to do is measure the flux density of these links, and we can.
http://news.yahoo...tor.html
runrig
4.8 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
With that in mind, I don't understand why it's so hard to conceive that the Sun's weakening magnetic field is causing Earth's to weaken as well?


This leads me to conclude that a weaker magnetosphere allows for more intense weather. A shifting magnetic north is likely playing a role too, I suspect the ocean feels it significantly.


Scroofy:
More intense weather?
Well yes, with extra energy/WV being input into storms/Lows. Certainly we've seen an increasingly sluggish and distorted Polar jet, due a reduced DeltaT twixt temperate and Polar regions in the NH in summer and distortions this last winter from the warm side.

Look, I can just about conceive in a magnetic connection, but only that - I see no connection with climate. As in fields causing more W/m*2 absorbed rather than merely moving air/water around a bit differently.
You need to correlate solar magnetism with ave global temps and we will need a long period of inactivity from the Sun to *test* that. If a grand minimum is upcoming then that may do it some years down the line.
Canute
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2014
I think runrig is in total denial. Tell us all how 400 Ft of sea level loss - at least 80,000 cubic miles of water gets to the poles except by massive cloud formation for 80,000 years leading to a long slow cool and massive trapping of CO2 in the beautiful dendrites of snowflakes.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2014
More intense weather?

Yes, especially when GHGs are included. Venus is very GHG rich, which would explain why we see the extreme changes quicker.

Look, I can just about conceive in a magnetic connection, but only that - I see no connection with climate

Then you haven't looked. Ever hear of a cloud chamber?
http://en.wikiped..._chamber
A strong electric field is often used to draw cloud tracks down to the sensitive region of the chamber and increase the sensitivity of the chamber.

Are you saying that our experimental data is no good for this case? Clouds definitely have an electric field and a charge, so any strong enough magnetic field would inductively influence clouds.

Normally, our strong and robust magnetic field keeps weather patterns stable, they're just a form of energy after all. The magnetosphere is our shield as we hurl through the galaxy, when it weakens our atmosphere is the next line of defense, and it's not nearly as good a shield.
Whydening Gyre
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2014
I know this will sound kinda uninformed and silly, but it seems too many get caught up in the whole it's "one thing and not another" argument. When, in actuality, it is BOTH (or more).
Scroof is on to something, I think, with the magnetism thought-loop...
As for the planet, It's a dynamic "feedback" loop.
Heat evaporates water, WV cools the atmosphere. All that back and forth of hot and cold generates pressure changes, which create air movement, which creates wind, which causes waves, which increase the surface area exposed to heat, which increase WV, which cools the - well, you get where I'm going...
It's all a sequential series of feedback loops which, at this point in time, seem to be warming the planet...
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2014
I think runrig is in total denial. Tell us all how 400 Ft of sea level loss - at least 80,000 cubic miles of water gets to the poles except by massive cloud formation for 80,000 years leading to a long slow cool and massive trapping of CO2 in the beautiful dendrites of snowflakes.

I have told you. Did you not read?
No, not denial at all - just science and the processes that occur via that science on Earth over geological time spans. Massive cloud formation did not happen - indeed it cannot - at least not outside of Fairyland.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2014
Scroofy:
Look we've been through this before and I will say it again.
There may be a slight correlation with the formation of cloud nuclei but that is NOT one with temperature (as in global averages). If there is one noted in any future upcoming Grand minimum then fine. But we do not have any evidence of that now. Clouds do not equal a one way cooling or warming - if they are at altitude it would be warming and low cloud cooling. More likely it would cancel. It would be enormously complicated to figure AND our Sun has cycled changes. There is no evidence of one that lasts for millenia to cause us to transfer into and out of ice ages.
In short you endeavour to throw away a stunning correlation/causation with empirical science and known of for ~150 years because *you* reckon its magnetic fields from the Sun .... which would take many decades to get to the bottom of.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2014
Which is....
Because politicians (sometimes) lie ... they always do, or at least are on this matter.

The flawed psychological processes are your own in coming to that conclusion.

Look, I can just about conceive in a magnetic connection, but only that - I see no connection with climate.

There cannot be a magnetic connection without an electrical connection. The Earth is immersed in the solar plasma AND connected to the sun via Birkeland currents, just as in the energy transfer in cell which is highly complex, so too is the energy transfer between the Sun and it planets.

which would take many decades to get to the bottom of.

Which is why a true scientist remains skeptical.
Scroofinator
1.2 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2014
There may be a slight correlation with the formation of cloud nuclei

Quit focusing on cloud formation, that's deeper down the rabbit hole than I'm trying to go. Think only magnetic influence, you need not go farther.

But we do not have any evidence of that now.

But we do. The trend of decreasing sunspots has been observed, and has been correlated to lower temps, during the Maunder Min. The only thing that we know of that could lead to a quiet Sun is a weakening magnetic field, which we are currently observing. Please tell me how this doesn't equate to supporting evidence?

In short you endeavour to throw away a stunning correlation/causation with empirical science and known of for ~150 years because *you* reckon its magnetic fields from the Sun


So because we've "known" of something for a while, it makes it true? History tells a different story.

which would take many decades to get to the bottom of

Right, let's ignore it because it would take too long..
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2014
Scroofy:
Quit focusing on cloud formation, that's deeper down the rabbit hole than I'm trying to go. Think only magnetic influence, you need not go farther.


Err I thought we were discussing a solar magnetic influence on the Earth's temperature. To me that means a correlation is a good start (causation MUST also be known). Are you implying that the magnetic influence alone causes a temp change - if you are that's novel/bizarre. The only way I can conceive a causation is via clouds.

"But we do not have any evidence of that now."

But we do. The trend of decreasing sunspots has been observed, and has been correlated to lower temps, during the Maunder Min. The only thing that we know of that could lead to a quiet Sun is a weakening magnetic field, which we are currently observing. Please tell me how this doesn't equate to supporting evidence?

In the past (Maunder/LIA) yes and at times of solar min. I thought I'd explained the reasons for that to you.
cont
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2014
cont
I certainly have many times on here. It's a Stratospheric influence involving both O3 and the reduced deltaT in the Strat (only NH winter) that couple to the trop to allow cold Arctic plunges further S. There are no less W/m*2 enough to make a sig dif (papers if req).
In short you talk of PJS "wiggles".

"In short you endeavour to throw away a stunning correlation/causation with empirical science and known of for ~150 years because *you* reckon its magnetic fields from the Sun"

So because we've "known" of something for a while, it makes it true? History tells a different story.

Yes in this case as it's empirical. GHG's do what they do. Observation has shown it via spectrographic analysis of (increasing) back radiated IR to the surface. We can see it happening.

"which would take many decades to get to the bottom of"

Right, let's ignore it because it would take too long.

You have it backwards ... it would be too late to mitigate AGW if left to sort that out ... waiting for a prolonged GM. We have to ignor now coz it will be long time coming. At present solar cycles are SHORT and reverse.
dustywells
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2014
Does the model account for the millions of tons of aircraft fuel burned at that altitude?
Dr_toad
Jul 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2014
Does the model account for the millions of tons of aircraft fuel burned at that altitude?


Very good question. I am not really sure of the answer but I have seen some models that try to account for vapor trails by increasing the water vapor on the well known main routes. However, I think that is the exception and not the rule. The reason I think that is the paper I saw was trying to determine if the vapor was a visible ice trail or vapor or how it was proportioned between them. Again, I don't know for sure and Run might have better information but I think that the impact is just beginning to be understood from the perspective of each plane.
Scroofinator
1.9 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
Are you implying that the magnetic influence alone causes a temp change

No, just saying it plays a role, I suspect one much larger than currently considered. If anything, I think the Sun's magnetic field effects weather patterns and cycles more than any direct heating/cooling. This would influence temps by moving cold/warm air in unique ways, such as the "PJS wiggles" you mentioned.
GHG's do what they do

Wow, so I should just shut up and conform. If they "do what they do", then why are the models "doing what they shouldn't do"? What a wonderful scientific process at work...

At present solar cycles are SHORT and reverse.

Well, the solar cycles are actually lengthening, and will continue to do so for the next few decades.
http://cbdakota.f...-now.png
Notice how the last solar cycle increased in length by a couple years? The total energy over the cycle remains the same, it's just delivered over a longer period.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2014
"Are you implying that the magnetic influence alone causes a temp change"

No, just saying it plays a role, I suspect one much larger than currently considered. If anything, I think the Sun's magnetic field effects weather patterns and cycles more than any direct heating/cooling. This would influence temps by moving cold/warm air in unique ways, such as the "PJS wiggles" you mentioned.


That, as I pointed out with the low solar connection to a -ve AO (Arctic oscillation - HP dominant) is what has been observed to happen. We are agreed. It does not alter the ave global temp however as the "wiggles" even out and warmer bits are balanced by colder bits.

"GHG's do what they do"

Wow, so I should just shut up and conform. If they "do what they do", then why are the models "doing what they shouldn't do"? What a wonderful scientific process at work...

No of course not .But science must work with what it knows, advancements will come, if there are any to be discovered.
cont
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2014
cont
Look, this is a serious situation, and I'm saying that science has a current answer that is *nearly* cast-iron certain. We CANNOT afford to bugger about with investigations that will take decades to unfold.
To my mind observation of increased back-radiated IR from CO2 molecules seals it.

"At present solar cycles are SHORT and reverse."

Well, the solar cycles are actually lengthening, and will continue to do so for the next few decades.
http://cbdakota.f...-now.png
Notice how the last solar cycle increased in length by a couple years? The total energy over the cycle remains the same, it's just delivered over a longer period.

Indeed - I do think personally that this is leading a GM around 2030. But until it happens the cycle will still reverse. And I do think that the evidence of the LIA is of PJS "wiggles" and only a tiny attenuation of TSI.
Please note that there is much evidence of enhanced volcanic activity/aerosol injection during the LIA.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2014
Well @thermo, according to your mechanics, we are completely screwed.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
We are agreed. It does not alter the ave global temp however as the "wiggles" even out and warmer bits are balanced by colder bits

I would say we are in agreement, although I won't write off any influence on avg global temps. Something is influencing temps with regard to the Sun's cycle, but I think it could have something to do with the planetary alignments as well, with Jupiter being a key player in my mind.
But science must work with what it knows, advancements will come, if there are any to be discovered

Here we have a large difference in philosophies. I think advancements will come because of new discoveries of things we don't know.
Indeed - I do think personally that this is leading a GM around 2030. But until it happens the cycle will still reverse. And I do think that the evidence of the LIA is of PJS "wiggles" and only a tiny attenuation of TSI.

Wow, we agree again. Is it safe to say that you, an expert, believes there is a magnetic influence on climate?
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2014

Here we have a large difference in philosophies. I think advancements will come because of new discoveries of things we don't know.

"Indeed - I do think personally that this is leading a GM around 2030. But until it happens the cycle will still reverse. And I do think that the evidence of the LIA is of PJS "wiggles" and only a tiny attenuation of TSI."

Wow, we agree again. Is it safe to say that you, an expert, believes there is a magnetic influence on climate?


Dont get me wrong, I do believe that there is much to be discovered, but that this essentially involves *other* realities, and that our reality is firmly founded on empirical physics.

I am open to a magnetic influence, and hence nuances in processes within the climate system - however I cannot conceive of anything that would alter the fundamental solar SW absorbed V terrestrial IR OUT equation. I/science knows of a solar min affect re a UV reduction ~30% of that at solar max and the consequent reduction of O3 destruction + heat released process. This causing an exaggerated Stratospheric deltaT reduction twixt equator and pole in the NH winter. This feeding down to the Trop and weakening/disrupting the Trop PV.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2014
http://hockeyscht...ses.html

Perhaps there are other opinions about this subject. How long will it take for this paper to show up on Phys.Org?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
Mr 166 says:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/paper-finds-evaporation-of-water-causes.html

Perhaps there are other opinions about this subject. How long will it take for this paper to show up on Phys.Org?


Are you kidding? Every model I have seen takes latent and sensible heat into consideration. The hydrological cycle takes into consideration the evaporation and movement of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/paper-finds-evaporation-of-water-causes.html

Perhaps there are other opinions about this subject. How long will it take for this paper to show up on Phys.Org?


Dr. Ken Caldeira still believes CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas that is warming the planet.
http://en.wikiped...Caldeira
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/paper-finds-evaporation-of-water-causes.html

Perhaps there are other opinions about this subject. How long will it take for this paper to show up on Phys.Org?


Watch this video and you'll see for yourself what Dr Ken Caldeira has to say about AGW. Note this was only a few months ago.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
Mr 166 says:
http://hockeyscht...ses.html

Perhaps there are other opinions about this subject. How long will it take for this paper to show up on Phys.Org?


Are you kidding? Every model I have seen takes latent and sensible heat into consideration. The hydrological cycle takes into consideration the evaporation and movement of water vapor in the atmosphere.


Sorry about the one star. Saw MR166 and my finger reacted all on it's own.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
Mr 166 says:
http://hockeyscht...ses.html

Perhaps there are other opinions about this subject. How long will it take for this paper to show up on Phys.Org?


Are you kidding? Every model I have seen takes latent and sensible heat into consideration. The hydrological cycle takes into consideration the evaporation and movement of water vapor in the atmosphere.


Sorry about the one star. Saw MR166 and my finger reacted all on it's own.


Completely understandable. I have the same reaction. :-)
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
Mr 166 says:
http://hockeyscht...ses.html

Perhaps there are other opinions about this subject. How long will it take for this paper to show up on Phys.Org?


Are you kidding? Every model I have seen takes latent and sensible heat into consideration. The hydrological cycle takes into consideration the evaporation and movement of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Thermo:
I was about to say the same thing - then spotted your post.

It all drops out in the GCM's the physical processes are modelled.

What struck me meteorologically is that increased evaporation does not create more clouds as the RH will remain the same due the hydrological cycle. And if it did then the release of LH by condensation aloft would increase the stability of atmosphere thereby reducing convective cloud (lower albdeo) ... a +ve feedback to the so-called -ve one.
Typical hockeyschtick, sounds plausible but turning physics on it's head.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2014
New here, but not new to the GW wars by any means.

Just a couple notes for the record:

1. The logical fallacy of appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority appealed to is not an authority on the subject under discussion. Obviously, the collection of all atmospheric and oceanic geophysicists is a collective authority on atmospheric and oceanic geophysics. So when people claim they're not, they're trolling, and have misunderstood the fallacy, which is actually an appeal to *false* authority. Appeal to a *real* authority is not a fallacy.

2. The total amount of *all* gases decreases with altitude; thus the partial pressure of all gases also decreases with altitude. However, that doesn't mean the *concentration* of any gas changes with altitude. Sure, there's less CO2; but there's also less O2, N2, etc. so absent any other effects the concentration will remain the same.

Carry on.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
New here, but not new to the GW wars by any means.

Just a couple notes for the record:

1. The logical fallacy of appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority appealed to is not an authority on the subject under discussion. Obviously, the collection of all atmospheric and oceanic geophysicists is a collective authority on atmospheric and oceanic geophysics. So when people claim they're not, they're trolling, and have misunderstood the fallacy, which is actually an appeal to *false* authority. Appeal to a *real* authority is not a fallacy.

2. The total amount of *all* gases decreases with altitude; thus the partial pressure of all gases also decreases with altitude. However, that doesn't mean the *concentration* of any gas changes with altitude. Sure, there's less CO2; but there's also less O2, N2, etc. so absent any other effects the concentration will remain the same.

Carry on.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
New here, but not new to the GW wars by any means.

Just a couple notes for the record:

1. The logical fallacy of appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority appealed to is not an authority on the subject under discussion. Obviously, the collection of all atmospheric and oceanic geophysicists is a collective authority on atmospheric and oceanic geophysics. So when people claim they're not, they're trolling, and have misunderstood the fallacy, which is actually an appeal to *false* authority. Appeal to a *real* authority is not a fallacy.

2. The total amount of *all* gases decreases with altitude; thus the partial pressure of all gases also decreases with altitude. However, that doesn't mean the *concentration* of any gas changes with altitude. Sure, there's less CO2; but there's also less O2, N2, etc. so absent any other effects the concentration will remain the same.

Carry on.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
Oops. Perhaps a friendly moderator will remove the redundant comments. Sorry, not used to your system here.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
Oops. Perhaps a friendly moderator will remove the redundant comments. Sorry, not used to your system here.


Once you hit the submit button it can take a while for it to show up on the thread.

runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
Da Schneib:
Welcome - well at least you are from my side of the *discussion*.
Yes, do a refresh - will often bring up your post.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
Wow, Ken Calderia is a real moron, and you folks know I rarely resort to name calling, so give me this one.
Water's evaporation of course, cools, no duh. Condensation at low levels of the atmosphere warms by the same amount, duh. But that is not the important effect. The amazing and subtle effect that is so important is the stabilization of the thermal gradient.

I am glad he spun you all up, it reveals your lack of understanding of the big rocks.
Rather than throw your filth at me for demo-ing the chinks in your armor, why not consider this-for a few minutes, and then throw your usual filth? I think this is simple enough that even a puppy can understand.

@thermo'slapdog1 (aka maggnus), you're really going to challenge me over the word amplifier? gain * state [can easily equal] effect + state, and so I fail to see anything other than word smithing making your point.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
Alchemist, did you say you had EE training? You've made a mistake. An addition can never equal a multiplication over a range. If you add all you do is move the zero point, but if you multiply you increase the envelope and any good EE should know that practically instinctively.

Gain, the most important characteristic of an amplifier of any kind, is multiplication, not addition.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Wow, Ken Calderia is a real moron, and you folks know I rarely resort to name calling, so give me this one.


Alche: Yes, he is a moron.

However, you do seem to resort to name calling at times and accusing with no grounds. For instance, you said I plagiarized part of a post a few months back. However, you never showed anything to show that to be true. I'm still waiting for that.

You also said that I am the same person as Truck Captain Stumpy. You never admitted that was untrue.

I'll let others chime in with what you have called them.

You are just a person who is not willing to learn anything. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
Alche said:
Water's evaporation of course, cools, no duh. Condensation at low levels of the atmosphere warms by the same amount, duh. But that is not the important effect. The amazing and subtle effect that is so important is the stabilization of the thermal gradient.


Once again you take a simplistic view. Can you tell me why the atmosphere gets colder as you go up through the troposphere? Hint, it has to do with both thermodynamics and heat transfer.

Your zero dimensional model does not explain thermal gradients. It would have to be no-less than one dimensional to do that. Have you changed your mind about needing more than one node?
skills4u
4 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2014
Does the model account for the millions of tons of aircraft fuel burned at that altitude?

Not sure, but here's a start if interested

http://phys.org/n...ons.html
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
On the aircraft fuel question, the amount involved is trivial.

I had much the same thought almost a decade ago, and went and did the research to establish just how much CO2 was being released by aircraft. (They also release water vapor, but due to the hydrological cycle its effect is negligible; any effect lasts days only.) It's not significant compared to the amount released by coal burning, left in the atmosphere longer due to deforestation, and released by automobiles. It's orders of magnitude smaller. Jet aircraft are much more efficient than automobiles.

I'm too busy to follow up and run the numbers, but the data are out there.

Oh, and pleased ta meetcha all. Thanks for the nice welcomes and browser advice. Please call me "Schneib." :D
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Worrying about warming AGW or otherwise, at this point in time is kind of like worrying which suit to wear to your own execution. The US has managed to destabilize the entire Mideast and Africa. China is trying to takeover the China Sea region and Russia seems to be trying to expand her borders.

A weakened US with a clueless foreign policy could very well lead to major wars and years of civil unrest throughout the world.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
@Da S, you're pulling my analogy into another subject, not all rules apply everywhere, I concede. However, you could, with nothing better to do, show gain as a Fourier transformation of(/in?) frequency dependence and sum, thus doing exactly that. The truth is in the results, and the two approaches will only vary in how difficult the approach is.
Beautiful bit about aircraft. That's going into my repertoire.

@thermostumped, you four are either so in bed with each other it doesn't matter if you are the same or not, and I don't see how you can refute that you answered for Captain S here: http://phys.org/n...ans.html on June 11. Teaming up with Lapdogs1&2, aka Maggie and Caliban make you nothing more than a team of cyber-bullies at best, or if you are the same, one really pathetic and insecure person.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
You did no Fourier transform, and you're obfuscating by confounding the infinite series of additions that would be required with a single addition. Furthermore, it makes no sense to talk about AGW in the frequency domain, only the time domain. Please don't obfuscate; it just makes you look silly and it's impolite.

You get a one star for that.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Once again you take a simplistic view. Can you tell me why the atmosphere gets colder as you go up through the troposphere? Hint, it has to do with both thermodynamics and heat transfer.

I simplified the view to make it obvious to the casual observer.
Easy answer, energy density, answers most effects, assuming you are not defining cold as temperature. Sunlight hits the ground and warms it, it doesn't strike mid-air and warm it, so you get a falling off with height-volume increases. Colder might imply the less dense atm and increased importance of radiation effects. This doesn't include a lot of effects, like Homosphere character. You are probably going to say this is wrong via misinterpretation, and I am already yawning in anticipation.

Your turn: There is a NL, NHPDE that has preeminent importance in MHD, it has many names, and is almost never used in entirety. What's two or more of its names, and name six of its variable
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
@Da S, you missed the point. Differential calculus is very much about turning a multiplication into an addition of sums, and you mentioned double E, not I. It is a question of convenience, and I don't even know why you're concerned, you're certainly dragging in a different direction: of course I did no Fourier transform, why would I? I just said if you wanted to take a lot of time to solve the problem, you could. Re-read; I said "can easily equal," for a reason.

Peace?

Besides, I was talking to thermo's lapdog, not you.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
Truth before peace.

The subject was amplifiers, and you made a claim about them that is not true.

In this case, the signal is CO2 concentration, and the amplifier is water vapor concentration; the output is into the Earth's heat balance.

Now if you can admit these truths, then we can have peace.

Oh, and you can call me "S" or "Schneib," please. "Da" = "The."
MR166
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
"In this case, the signal is CO2 concentration, and the amplifier is water vapor concentration; the output is into the Earth's heat balance."

To say that CO2 equals more heat equals more water vapor which equals even more heat and water vapor sounds like a run away positive feedback loop or oscillation.

That has not been proven by man or geologic history.

For a change let's talk about all of the negative feedbacks that have kept the earth stable all of these years. Climate science seems to ignore them as if they do not exist.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
MR166, if the amount of positive feedback were constant you'd be right; but it's not. The amount of feedback decreases with temperature. That's because of Wien's Law; the peak frequency of radiation moves with temperature, but the absorption spectra of the GW gases do not.

As far as feedbacks, the Earth system is full of both positive and negative feedbacks. There are also buffers; for example, the temperature would have risen faster except that the oceans are absorbing some of the extra heat. So making such a simplistic statement is silly.

Finally, the water vapor is higher, and the temperature is higher. The data are right there in the article. Are you denying the data?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
As far as climate science ignoring negative feedbacks, that's just wrong, period. If it did the prediction of climate models for the end of the ice age would turn us into Venus.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Alche said:
Easy answer, energy density, answers most effects, assuming you are not defining cold as temperature. Sunlight hits the ground and warms it, it doesn't strike mid-air and warm it, so you get a falling off with height-volume increases. Colder might imply the less dense atm and increased importance of radiation effects. This doesn't include a lot of effects, like Homosphere character. You are probably going to say this is wrong via misinterpretation, and I am already yawning in anticipation.


I am going to say you need to read the following:

http://en.wikiped...pse_rate

Now you need to explain how you think you can get away with a zero-dimensional model of the atmosphere and still explain lapse rate. Your model is insufficient.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
Alche asked:
Your turn: There is a NL, NHPDE that has preeminent importance in MHD, it has many names, and is almost never used in entirety. What's two or more of its names, and name six of its variable


Navier-Stokes - but only when coupled with Maxwell's equations. I use RANS or LES for the solutions using CFD.

Velocity, Stress Tensor, density, pressure (gradient), magnetic field, charge distribution, electric field, permittivity, permeability.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2014
For bystanders and onlookers, thermo is talking about the Navier-Stokes equations that describe fluid dynamics.

It's important to understand that exact solutions to the NS equations are unknown; in fact it is a Millennium Problem with a large cash prize to either find them or prove they do not exist. For this reason, solutions to the equations must be -- wait for it, deniers -- simulated, using numerical techniques on major computer installations to determine the approximate outcome. Since all of atmospheric and oceanic geophysics must use fluid dynamics, in turn we must use simulations to predict global climate. Thus, global climate models.

If you doubt these simulations, note that the propellers of submarines must be designed to prevent cavitation; this is to make them as silent as possible to avoid detection by enemies. The US has in fact used extensive numerical simulations (aka computer models) to design such propellers, which in fact work. And this was decades ago.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
For bystanders and onlookers, thermo is talking about the Navier-Stokes equations that describe fluid dynamics.

It's important to understand that exact solutions to the NS equations are unknown; in fact it is a Millennium Problem with a large cash prize to either find them or prove they do not exist. For this reason, solutions to the equations must be -- wait for it, deniers -- simulated, using numerical techniques on major computer installations to determine the approximate outcome. Since all of atmospheric and oceanic geophysics must use fluid dynamics, in turn we must use simulations to predict global climate. Thus, global climate models.


Absolutely correct. Let's see what Alche has to say. :-)
Urgelt
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
I just love the denialist argument that clouds only produce a cooling effect because they increase its albedo. Love it love it love it.

It's the most wonderful example of how denialists are making shit up as they go, without paying the slightest attention to the science.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
I don't see how you can refute that you answered for Captain S here
@alche
so? for starters, he gave an answer that I would likely have given anyway. ya gotta hear it twice to believe it? what?
Thermo is NOT me, and there is a challenge that can solve that problem if you are willing to accept. We can even insure the legitimacy of identification by using a neutral third party for reference. You only break this argument out when you are caught being an idiot by one of us...
you ALSO lied in that thread you linked and called plagiarism which you STILL cannot support or verify! This is a RealityCheck move, so either YOU are RC or taking lessons on being an idiot Troll? WHICH IS IT? your logic can be used against you as well, you know

and from the looks of your argument above, I see that you are being called out YET AGAIN by Thermo and now Da Schneib because you don't know what you are talking about.

So you going to say Da Schneib is us too?

KEEP IT UP Da Schneib!
GOOD WORK YALL
supamark23
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
"In this case, the signal is CO2 concentration, and the amplifier is water vapor concentration; the output is into the Earth's heat balance."

To say that CO2 equals more heat equals more water vapor which equals even more heat and water vapor sounds like a run away positive feedback loop or oscillation.

That has not been proven by man or geologic history.


@ MR166 - Actually, it has. A long time ago (it's fairly basic phyiscal chemistry). You'd know that if you had any sort of science education, but you don't (yet still run your ignorant mouth) proving to all how dumb you are. good job, I'm sure your parents are real "proud".
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
OK Supa if that is the case how did we ever exit Cretaceous Period when temperatures, ie water vapors, were much higher than they are today?

The point is,,,,,there are negative feedback loops that regulate the temperature and keep the Earth habitable. CO2 and temperatures have both been much much higher in the past and we are still here discussing the issue. Today's climate "Science" is nothing more than a tool of big business and the politicians that it controls.
supamark23
5 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
simple, simpleton MR166 - it's a basic fact that CO2 absorbs/re-emits in the infrared (heat) wavelengths. So, Earth at night emits IR/heat. Some of those IR photons heading up into space are absorbed by CO2 molecules, and roughly half of those that are absorbed/re-emitted by the CO2 will go back to Earth and warm it a bit. As you put more CO2 into the atmosphere, the percentage of IR phontons that are absorbed/re-emitted back down increases. If you can disprove this long known fact, there's probably a Nobel Prize in it for you...

As to how we exited the cretaceous? Are you really that f'ing stupid? A huge chunk of rock plowed into what we know as the Gulf of Mexico and blotted out the sun for a few years killing off the dinosaurs and quite a few other species.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
http://www.scienc...ous.html

I suppose that you were around at that time,,,,,, you seem so sure!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
@S, well maybe you can't but I can do it all day long. And I am not even really interested in the point, you don't believe in simple Calc., it's up 2 ewe..
@thermo, I did look at wiki's lapse rate. I knew ahead of time no matter what I said you would say it was wrong. **YAWN!** Excuse me, that was even bigger than *I* expected.
Well done on the MHD, save you didn't give any of the other names for it, or appr. derivations, it is tougher to "google" those.
@Captaindaynamics, Why would I believe it? You are so in bed with each other. that your protests, even if true, are meaningless.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2014
I would appreciate it if anyone could respond to this question.
Would a large molecular "clump" of CO2 be large enough for water vapor to form around it? A warm CO2 molecule would keep the water as vapor longer, allowing it to rise higher into the troposphere due to heat convection, right? More water in upper troposphere means more heat trapped in the atmospheric cavity?
And Mr. The Da (a play on a 90's musician name who sang "this could be the day") - you've provided awesome info from jump street. Thanks. Tween you n Thermo, I've picked up a lot...
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
however I cannot conceive of anything that would alter the fundamental solar SW absorbed V terrestrial IR OUT equation


Nor should you, as I'm not saying that's wrong at all. That IR interaction is well understood, and the data backs it up. But it is still incomplete in as much as it alone has failed to forecast climate accurately.

The article you gave me on PDO from Landschiedt, however, has been quite adept at making predictions, namely ENSO/NAO patterns.
http://www.john-d...end.html
He showed a strong correlation between energetic solar eruptions and ENSO/NAO cycles, thus postulating the Sun too would effect PDO. We know that it's not the the radiant energy that causes this, so the only thing that's left is the increased magnetic flux that surges with these eruptions.

We also know that the oceans store large amounts of CO2 and heat, so I think it would be safe to assume that much of climate change could be attributed to ocean variations.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
@Captain... Why would I believe it? You are so in bed with each other. that your protests, even if true, are meaningless.
@alchie
your problem is that you are one of those FRINGE idea persons that is seeking a cult-like following based upon your ability to spew science-y sounding crap...
Whereas THERMODYNAMICS and a few others here ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON and have CONTINUALLY posted, over and over, proving themselves and their argument...

You seek the recognition they have without doing the work. too bad, so sad.

Thermo et al have gained RESPECT for being CORRECT, PROVING themselves, SUPPORTING IDEAS with empirical data, studies and more...
ALl you got is a mouthful of pseudoscience and a few claims that have been debunked already by mainstream science. What pisses you off more? being debunked or being called out for falling for the BS debunked crap?

Thanks to Thermodynamics, Runrig, Da Schneib, Supamark and strange for being literate and intelligent!
KEEP IT UP GUYS!
Scroofinator
not rated yet Aug 04, 2014
A warm CO2 molecule would keep the water as vapor longer, allowing it to rise higher into the troposphere due to heat convection, right? More water in upper troposphere means more heat trapped in the atmospheric cavity?

Seems completely logical to me, but I'm no expert. While on the topic, wouldn't most GHGs(namely methane) act this way as well?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
I would appreciate it if anyone could respond to this question.
Would a large molecular "clump" of CO2 be large enough for water vapor to form around it? A warm CO2 molecule would keep the water as vapor longer, allowing it to rise higher into the troposphere due to heat convection, right? More water in upper troposphere means more heat trapped in the atmospheric cavity?
And Mr. The Da (a play on a 90's musician name who sang "this could be the day") - you've provided awesome info from jump street. Thanks. Tween you n Thermo, I've picked up a lot...


Whyd: Let me take a little time here. You have a couple of related issues that have to be addressed in terms of molecules. First, there are polar and non-polar molecules. CO2 is a linear, non-polar molecule. Water vapor is polar and has a central oxygen molecule with hydrogens coming off at about 104.5 degrees. Continued
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
Thanks to Thermodynamics, Runrig, Da Schneib, Supamark and strange for being literate and intelligent!

Sorry, didn't mean to leave out other contributors...

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
Whyd asked:
Would a large molecular "clump" of CO2 be large enough for water vapor to form around it?


Molecules move at about the speed of a bullet at room temperature. They bounce off each other thousands of times per second. Because of that the velocities are distributed according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.

http://en.wikiped...ribution

That is the reason that gases are mixed and don't "clump." Instead, they bounce around until the temperature is low enough that the forces around them can pull them together and they liquefy.

The other part of this is that the molecules change their motion when they absorb a photon. They can change translation (become "hotter"), rotation, or vibration. However, they then either emit a photon or collide with other molecules and change motion - or both. Continued
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2014
Additionally, I just read about unknown aerosol particulate distribution in lower cloud formations, in another article.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
Continued: Considering molecules to remain energized by a photon is not a good view. Instead, molecules should be considered to be constantly changing but also to be related to temperature by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.

Whyd said:
A warm CO2 molecule would keep the water as vapor longer, allowing it to rise higher into the troposphere due to heat convection, right? More water in upper troposphere means more heat trapped in the atmospheric cavity?


Because the molecules don't remain "warm" they don't keep water vapor or rise as single molecules. Instead, the movement of bulk gases is governed by "convection" and not by the motion of the individual molecules.

The reason I had to go to layers in my model of the atmosphere and could not rely on a single node was because I had to model the lapse rate as layers without worrying about communication between the layers in any way other than radiation (convection is too complex). Continued
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 04, 2014
And additionally work by Henrik Svensmark (SKY experiment) provides some insight into magnetic influence of atmospheric properties... Of particular note was the blurb about UV causing clumping of 50 nanometers sized particles...
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
OK Supa if that is the case how did we ever exit Cretaceous Period when temperatures, ie water vapors, were much higher than they are today?

Read this, @MR166:
http://en.wikiped...on_event
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
Continued: You can either look at the molecular motion (which is governed by exchange of energy by collisions and radiation but takes place very quickly) or you can look at bulk motion which is what produces thermal motion such as cloud plumes. The problem is that you can't mix them up. You either look at molecular motion (based on quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics) or you use convection based on measured thermal properties.

And, when you want to talk about heat transfer you have to be careful about which perspective you are using.

Let me know if this is clear or if I have to expand on it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
Thanks to Thermodynamics, Runrig, Da Schneib, Supamark and strange for being literate and intelligent!

Sorry, didn't mean to leave out other contributors...

OOPS
Sorry Whyde... I was running out of room! I couldn't do everyone!

AND WYDE TOO EVERYONE!
:-)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
@S, well maybe you can't but I can do it all day long. And I am not even really interested in the point, you don't believe in simple Calc., it's up 2 ewe..
For it to be relevant you would have had to prove that you can analyze AGW in the frequency domain.

And you haven't.

You're obfuscating again.

Not to mention being insulting. I'm an EE, and I have no trouble with calculus. Calculus is neat math, but you have to know how to apply it. You don't, or else you're making stuff up.

Like I said, no truth, no peace.

Edited to add: For bystanders and lurkers, since AGW is a one-time event analysis in the frequency domain is silly.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
Scroofy said:
Nor should you, as I'm not saying that's wrong at all. That IR interaction is well understood, and the data backs it up. But it is still incomplete in as much as it alone has failed to forecast climate accurately.


I disagree that the models do not forecast climate accurately. I agree they do not have the ability to forecast details but they do a reasonable job of forecasting bulk heat transfer due to radiation transfer. For me it is much more important that they are close on the amount of enthalpy change but it is less important, to me, how the heat is distributed over the fluids on the earth.

Don't get me wrong. It will be necessary to get the distribution among the fluids right as they improve the models. However, at this point, it is important to be able to build an energy balance. From what I have seen, they do a good job of that. Let me know if you agree with this view so we can discuss it more.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
[Sorry Whyde... I was running out of room! I couldn't do everyone!
AND WYDE TOO EVERYONE!
:-)

LOL, CAp'n! But I wasn't talking about me. I'm just the kid in the room that says "Yeah,but.."

Let me know if this is clear or if I have to expand on it.

Thanks, Thermo. It's about as clear as I'm gonna be able to wrap my head around, tonight. LOVE the informative input. Fascinating stuff!
My "artist" (an engineer with ADHD) mind keeps trying to see how it all conforms to golden ratio, somehow... and loops...
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
A brief cleanup and some kudos:

I forgot to mention that those submarine propeller simulations/models use those same Navier-Stokes equations. My bad. :D

Thanks, @Whyde and @Captain for the nice remarks. All compliments gratefully received. :D

@Whyde and @Scroof: I'm gonna kick back and see how you guys do with thermo. I have a pretty good visualization that may help you understand, but I don't want to horn in unless it looks like you're having trouble. He's got it. One thing to remember: molecules don't rise or fall in the air column if they're "hot" or "cold" because a single molecule can't be said to have a temperature. They're either excited, in one or another vibration mode, or they're not, period. It's binary: yes/no. There is no maybe, nor are there any intermediate states. And as thermo says, the half-life of an excited molecule is very short: either it radiates, or it bumps into another molecule and loses its vibration by "kicking" the other molecule away. Milliseconds.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2014
I agree they do not have the ability to forecast details but they do a reasonable job of forecasting bulk heat transfer due to radiation transfer.

This we agree on, that science is pretty irrefutable. I disagree when you say:
For me it is much more important that they are close on the amount of enthalpy change but it is less important, to me, how the heat is distributed over the fluids on the earth

There isn't a whole lot of variation with the Sun's radiant output and thus enthalpy change(at least long term), yet we see radical climate changes with regard to the glacial/interglacial periods. These changes can't be fully associated with IR interaction. I would argue that oceanic cooling/heating patterns, which I believe are regulated heavily by solar magnetic forcing, are the only things that could sustain the large timescales needed to have a glacial period.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
And @Whyde, watch out for Svensmark. There are some serious credibility problems there, unfortunately. He's a favorite of the Heartland Institute, which is a well-known denier organization.

Here's a profile on DeSmogBlog:
http://www.desmog...vensmark
DeSmogBlog is a pretty good AGW denier debunking site. They focus on identifying and debunking the professional deniers for the general reader/researcher, whereas RealClimate focuses more deeply on the state of the scientific research and is more technical. Both are good; which one you will do better with depends on how deeply you want to get into the actual science.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
@Scroof, are you familiar with the Milanković Cycles?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
Scroofy said:
There isn't a whole lot of variation with the Sun's radiant output and thus enthalpy change(at least long term), yet we see radical climate changes with regard to the glacial/interglacial periods. These changes can't be fully associated with IR interaction. I would argue that oceanic cooling/heating patterns, which I believe are regulated heavily by solar magnetic forcing, are the only things that could sustain the large timescales needed to have a glacial period.


I am not sure where this came from, but I figured you would recognize the Milankovitch cycles as producing the glacials/interglacials. I don't think there is a lot of disagreement on that. Do you think the Milankovitch cycles are wrong for some reason?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Great minds think alike, thermo!

:D

For lurkers and bystanders, these are oscillations of various sorts in the Earth's orbit, and in the direction the poles point, and so forth. There's a good Wikipedia article; if you don't have a Unicode reference, you'll find the article under the English spelling thermo used. These oscillations cause changes in the solar constant as seen from the Earth's surface, in turn bringing not only glaciations and interglacials, but actually whole ice ages (which are usually comprised of several glaciations and interglacials). The Earth is currently in an interglacial which is forecast to last another 30-50 thousand years, and which started about 11 thousand years ago, at the beginning of the Holocene, the current geological epoch. The previous epoch, the Pleistocene, is what most people call "the last ice age," although this is actually technically wrong.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
Thanks, The Da :-) All I did was read what was on Wiki and I think one other article...
But, from what read, I don't think he is a global warming denier. He just seems to be providing additional possible variables to the total equation.
And - he's Danish - they were the class trouble kids in school...:-) Just Kiddin'...
Anyway, you guys have given me a lot to sleep on, tonight. The "fluidics" aspect, especially...
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
LOL, well I guess it takes a blockheaded Swede like me to deal with them troublesome Danes. :D

For the record, Svensmark claims that global warming is at least half caused by cosmic ray variations; unfortunately, multiple studies have shown that he has drastically overestimated the effect, at best; at worst, there is no effect at all. The evidence for any effect at all is highly equivocated, unlike the evidence for CO₂ driven warming which is the overwhelming consensus among the thousands of atmospheric and oceanic geophysicists studying climate change.

While Svensmark's ideas may turn out to have some relevance, first it's too early to tell, and second it seems very unlikely at this time that they will turn out to be a major factor, based on the evidence so far.

Like I said, watch out.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
And as far as fluid dynamics, you could do a lot worse than looking into some of the details to get a good understanding of the sorts of things that you can and can't expect to see the atmosphere do. And as thermo's handle hints, thermodynamics will also help, and is a bit less intimidating. But look at *both*. Otherwise you can be misled.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
And as far as fluid dynamics, you could do a lot worse than looking into some of the details to get a good understanding of the sorts of things that you can and can't expect to see the atmosphere do. And as thermo's handle hints, thermodynamics will also help, and is a bit less intimidating. But look at *both*. Otherwise you can be misled.

Thermo has been great, in that he has been straight forward in answering my questions, never seeming "snobbish" about it. Even tho, from his perspective educationally, they may seem rather simple.
And - thermal dynamics can also be viewed as fluidic...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
Dang... And I even know about the "refresh" thing....
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
A warm CO2 molecule would keep the water as vapor longer, allowing it to rise higher into the troposphere due to heat convection, right? More water in upper troposphere means more heat trapped in the atmospheric cavity?

Seems completely logical to me, but I'm no expert. While on the topic, wouldn't most GHGs(namely methane) act this way as well?

Scroofy, WG:

CO2 has a concentration of 400ppm in the atmosphere, and is well mixed. That leaves 999,600 other molecules between.
Although heavier than N2 etc it's mass is completely swamped by air movement. Vis Saharan dust traveling 1000's miles when picked up as sand-storms reaching to jet levels.
Atmospheric mixing is a powerful thing.
https://metoffice.../sahara/
http://capita.wus...idar.pdf
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014

Thermo has been great, in that he has been straight forward in answering my questions, never seeming "snobbish" about it. Even tho, from his perspective educationally, they may seem rather simple


Whyd: There are a lot of things I am ignorant of. Ignorance is not the same as stupid. We have people that are constantly posting that are stupid (Rygg2, Alche, AntiEm, Uba, Cantdrive, etc...). You are not stupid and you pay attention to the things that Run, Schneib, Stump, VietVet and others have explained. You are one of the people on the list that makes it worth while to spend time explaining things. I also learn a lot by working through issues and listening to others on the list. So, we all win by spending time working on issues that come up. None of these things are really "simple" or everyone would know them. Thanks for paying attention and making it worth spending the time for all of us.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014

Thermo has been great, in that he has been straight forward in answering my questions, never seeming "snobbish" about it. Even tho, from his perspective educationally, they may seem rather simple


Whyd: There are a lot of things I am ignorant of. Ignorance is not the same as stupid. We have people that are constantly posting that are stupid (Rygg2, Alche, AntiEm, Uba, Cantdrive, etc...). You are not stupid and you pay attention to the things that Run, Schneib, Stump, VietVet and others have explained. You are one of the people on the list that makes it worth while to spend time explaining things. I also learn a lot by working through issues and listening to others on the list. So, we all win by spending time working on issues that come up. None of these things are really "simple" or everyone would know them. Thanks for paying attention and making it worth spending the time for all of us.

Seconded Thermo.
Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
but I figured you would recognize the Milankovitch cycles as producing the glacials/interglacials

I'm well aware of the Milankovitch cycles, and I think they describe the glacial/interglacial pattern very nicely, but these cycles don't actually produce ice ages. The Sun's TSI varies only at a small .1-.2%, over the last couple thousand years at least. This variation isn't enough to drastically heat/cool the globe during the start and end of interglacials. The only thing I can think of that can produce such heat transfer globally are the oceanic currents/patterns.

The Earth is currently in an interglacial which is forecast to last another 30-50 thousand year

I'm gonna need to see a source for this. From my what I've seen and read, for the last 400k years at least, interglacials max out around 15k years.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Seconded Thermo.
thirdeded... lol
you must be posting for me again, Thermo!

better watch out, alchie will call you me again! use this as proof!
Thermo has been great, in that he has been straight forward in answering my questions
@Whyde
There are a few people like that here, like Runrig, Thermo and Q-Star
they've helped me learn more than just what I learned in the physics classes... the classes helped teach me the basics, but it is the people here posting how those basics apply directly to a situation that opens up the whole thing and makes it worth while. AND they are great to learn from (Experience is the best teacher, and they HAVE it in spades!)

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

take a few classes and enjoy yourself! you don't have to worry about grades... it's FUN (especially the class by Prof. Lewin)

THANKS to the rest of the educated people who post too! and those who give insight to the learner's like me. I know I missed some
PEACE
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
Oh-Oh,,, this global warming better end soon or the entire southern hemisphere oceans will be covered in ice as the Antarctic melts and the fresh water freezes.

http://sunshineho...-normal/
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
The Earth is currently in an interglacial which is forecast to last another 30-50 thousand year

I'm gonna need to see a source for this. From my what I've seen and read, for the last 400k years at least, interglacials max out around 15k years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Present_and_future_conditions

"More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years."

Source: Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?". Science 297 (5585): 1287–8. doi:10.1126/science.1076120. PMID 12193773
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2014
As far as the Milanković cycles creating ice ages, not just the variation from glacial to interglacial and back, try:

http://en.wikiped...ycles.29

It is one among several causes, which include continental drift causing changes in ocean currents; ice ages seem to occur when the continents cover one or both poles or surround one or both poles with land (for example now- the Antarctic is a continent, and the Arctic is a nearly landlocked body of water), and when the continents block the flow from the poles to the equator (for example Rodina in the Cryogenian), and end when the blockage is removed and the atmosphere starts to experience global warming.

So you're correct, it's not the *only* cause, but it's a cause of ice ages.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Well done on the MHD, save you didn't give any of the other names for it, or appr. derivations, it is tougher to "google" those.

You see thermo, a real MHD guy, would have been contemptuous of my request for the six variables, and been more proud of their ability to locate the half-remembered names of the equations.
Now a fake one would have been proud to be able to isolate six variables... they were a red herring.
Didn't understand MHD inferences, didn't know how to apply Einstein co-efficients, now this... what would you have me believe?

As to the equation, not what I wanted, exactly but I was willing to extend you some credit based on the net wideness. It worked out the same.

I noticed you moved on without comment.

;)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
Whyd: ... You are one of the people on the list that makes it worth while to spend time explaining things. I also learn a lot by working through issues and listening to others on the list. So, we all win by spending time working on issues that come up. None of these things are really "simple" or everyone would know them. Thanks for paying attention and making it worth spending the time for all of us.
This. Satisfying peoples' curiosity, when they're really interested and not trolling, is a pleasure, allowing us to vicariously experience your "Eureka!" moments. Also, by explaining it to you, I have to do research, and that keeps me up-to-date on the current state of the science on the issue.

Thanks!
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
Oh-Oh,,, this global warming better end soon or the entire southern hemisphere oceans will be covered in ice as the Antarctic melts and the fresh water freezes.

http://sunshineho...-normal/

Uh-oh, the goldfish has circumnavigated the bowl again.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
Run I will admit there was a little hyperbole there but the general statement does agree with warming theory.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Satisfying peoples' curiosity, when they're really interested and not trolling, is a pleasure, allowing us to vicariously experience your "Eureka!" moments. Also, by explaining it to you, I have to do research, and that keeps me up-to-date on the current state of the science on the issue.

Thanks!

Me too - I do research before I post most things and do learn/relearn again.
So a great way to keep refreshed and in touch with new aspects of the science.
It also drives home the fact of the truth of AGW.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
I find The Da's inclusion of land mass and continental drift relating to ice accumulation intriguing. Somewhat counter intuitive to me, but interesting.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
Run I will admit there was a little hyperbole there but the general statement does agree with warming theory.
You mean other than Antarctica ice sheets collapsing, right?

And you do realize that fresh water mixes with sea water when icebergs melt, right?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
I find The Da's inclusion of land mass and continental drift relating to ice accumulation intriguing. Somewhat counter intuitive to me, but interesting.
It has to do with blocking the circulation from the poles to the tropics. When this happens, heat can be sucked out of the poles and ice sheets form. When the circulation is open, on the other hand, then warm water circulating from the tropics keeps polar ice sheets from forming by injecting heat into the polar oceans.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
"It has to do with blocking the circulation from the poles to the tropics. When this happens, heat can be sucked out of the poles and ice sheets form. When the circulation is open, on the other hand, then warm water circulating from the tropics keeps polar ice sheets from forming by injecting heat into the polar oceans."

Of course it is all so simple now! It is just a shame that this was not known in the 90s when climate science was predicting iceless poles.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2014
... this was not known in the 90s when climate science was predicting iceless poles.
Source?

Oh, and BTW, that prediction is very near coming true in the Arctic. I suspect you are obfuscating by claiming it would be *both* poles at once.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Be careful of Grand theft!!!!!!!

A whole bunch of heat is missing.

http://hockeyscht...ans.html
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
"Oh, and BTW, that prediction is very near coming true in the Arctic."

All I can say is WOW!!!!!!! That is almost as impressive as predicting that there will be another dust bowl in Oklahoma.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
Be careful of Grand theft!!!!!!!

A whole bunch of heat is missing.

http://hockeyscht...ans.html

Spin from a Denialist Blog my friend....

Try a peer-reviewed paper on Abyssal warming....

"In summary, we show that the abyssal ocean has warmed significantly from the 1990's to the 2000's (Table 1). This warming does not occur uniformly around the globe but is amplified to the south and fades to the north (Fig. 8). Both Indian and Atlantic Oceans only warm on one side, with statistically insignificant cooling on their other side. The recent decadal warming of the abyssal global ocean below 4000 m is equivalent to a global surface energy imbalance of 0.027 (60.009) W m2 with Southern Ocean deep warming contributing an additional 0.068 (60.062) W m2 from 1000 to 4000 m."

http://www.uwpcc....2010.pdf
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
Runrig beat me to it. 5 stars. 8D

Also, the other article on here about the Atlantic warming "turbocharging" the Pacific trade winds notes that these trade winds are causing the Pacific to turn its water over, bringing warmer water to the abyssal depths and cooler water to the surface.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
"Oh, and BTW, that prediction is very near coming true in the Arctic."

All I can say is WOW!!!!!!! That is almost as impressive as predicting that there will be another dust bowl in Oklahoma.

Ummmm, you did note that it was a *prediction*, from *before* the Arctic underwent accelerated melting in this decade, right?

You're obfuscating again. And you don't have a source.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
To tell you the truth I never realized that AGW was this serious.

http://news.heart...cenities

http://www.rtcc.o...e-versa/
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
Sorry, not interested in lies from the Fa... err, Heartland Institute. Next you'll be quoting Inhofe, or mistaking degrees for radians.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
Be careful of Grand theft!!!!!!!

A whole bunch of heat is missing.

Not missing. Just being assimilated. Which, on the aggregate, is raising temperature of the assimilator (ocean).
Accretion, regardless of time frame, can be a harsh mistress...
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
You see thermo, a real MHD guy, would have been contemptuous of my request for the six variables, and been more proud of their ability to locate the half-remembered names of the equations.


Alche:

It is just you I am contemptuous of.

You think I am also Stumpy and that I have multiple accounts. I am not and I don't.

You accused me of plagiarizing and then could not supply an example. Of course not.

You seem to think I don't work on MHD but you have no idea of what I do. I do work on an MHD project.

You don't understand why a zero dimensional model does not predict the response of the atmosphere and you claim your model falsifies AGW. Yet you would not submit to the $30K prize for anyone who could falsify AGW.

You seem to be delusional. Please have your doctor adjust your medication.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
There seems to be a conflicting paper on this subject.

http://hockeyscht...ion.html
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
Where is the so called CO2 blanket effect?

http://jenniferma...rming-2/
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
There seems to be a conflicting paper on this subject.

http://hockeyscht...ion.html

Ummm, if the atmosphere radiates more to the ground, then the atmosphere will get cooler, not warmer. GW isn't ground warming, it's atmospheric warming. This is duh, and a typical piece of denier obfuscation.

Adding another site telling the same lie won't help either.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
There seems to be a conflicting paper on this subject.

http://hockeyscht...ion.html

Ummm, if the atmosphere radiates more to the ground, then the atmosphere will get cooler, not warmer. GW isn't ground warming, it's atmospheric warming. This is duh, and a typical piece of denier obfuscation.

Adding another site telling the same lie won't help either.

Anyone know of any current data monitoring the Earth's core temp and rotational speed?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
We have no way of monitoring the core temperature. It's four thousand miles away through solid and liquid rock. We estimate it from basic physics principles and knowledge of the Earth's mass, determined by our orbital elements and gravimetric measurements from satellites. Our knowledge of the core comes from that and from the magnetic field created by the dynamo effect caused by the rotation.

As for rotational speed, every astronomer on the planet monitors that almost continuously; if it were to change all our telescopes would point to the wrong places in the sky when we tried to find anything. "Leap seconds" are added when necessary to correct for irregularities in the rotation; they can only be predicted about six months in advance. See here: http://en.wikiped...he_Earth

The Earth's rotation is slowing by about 2.3 ms every century, mostly due to tidal friction.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
I should also have mentioned earthquake S (shear) and P (pressure) waves, which we monitor continuously, and the way they travel differently from one another, and differently in the crust, mantle, and core, in my discussion above about monitoring the core. Because of this, we know quite a bit about the core even though we can't see or touch it.

S and P can also stand for Secondary and Primary, because the P waves travel faster than the S waves do, and so arrive at remote seismic monitoring stations first.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
There seems to be a conflicting paper on this subject.

http://hockeyscht...ion.html

Not conficting ... just conflated by a denialist Blog.

"The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site."

MR:

This one site - not global.
A change in local climate in the 14 yr period (during the La Nina caused "pause")
does not tell us anything about a global response over a much more relevant ~30 yr period.
Note the "primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness" bit.
SO not due CO2.
Here are papers on spectral measurement of back-radiated terrestrial IR....
http://www.nature...5a0.html
http://spiedigita...urce/2/p
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Schneib, thanks for the link for your 50k yr interglacial statement. I still find it hard to believe we are going to see a a period that is 3x longer than the average of the last 4, but that's just the data talking.

Also, I'm not sure if continental drift can really be accounted for in anything as most move less than an inch a year. A large glacier, such as the west antarctic ice shelf, breaking off and cooling a large portion of ocean would likely have a large influence though, so I'm with you on that.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2014
Sure Scroof, glad to. :D

It's the M. cycles; the various ones have come to a confluence. Since their periods are different, they run in and out of phase; now they're in phase and high, so we get an extra-long interglacial; if they were in phase and low it would be an extra-long glaciation instead.

Continental drift certainly can't account for glaciation/interglacial cycles within an ice age, but it does partly account for the ice ages coming and going, along with other effects you might find it worthwhile to ask about. Particularly global warming and cooling. :D
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Here is just a little more government climate wisdom.

http://dailycalle...t-video/
supamark23
5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
Where is the so called CO2 blanket effect?

http://jenniferma...rming-2/


-MR166 - that Hammer fellow isn't a scientist, he's an engineer. Those that can't understand science often turn to engineering (which only takes math ability, but does not require insight). I mean, he actually tries to claim that CO2 doesn't absorb/re-emit IR radiation! As I said before, CO2's relation to IR vis-a-vis the greenhouse effect is scientific fact. Period. Anyone who tries to say differently is either ignorant of the facts or a liar.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2014
Errr, well, *some* engineers have insight. The good ones. Says the systems engineer. ;)
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
@runrig,
For accuracy, but not, in my opinion relevance ;), CO2 is >400pm in the atmosphere. It is 400 ppm in suburbia, and up to about 650ppm in major metropolitan areas during high traffic hours.

Source, my handy-dandy CO2 meter. I can actually trace, with some lag, traffic changes. You can tell time by CO2 changes! Me being outside near it changes values by ~60 ppm! And yet, Mona Loa, with an active relatively high variability volcano is supposed to be a gold standard.
They lost me when it was NOT advertised that it was even near an active volcano. It should make everyone suspicious, but somehow doesn't.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
@thermostumpy
Seems to me I have already addressed all of your whines about your credibility a few times.
Plagiarism, a post you and maggnus acted-out in Nov-Dec 2012, which you repeated as new. You were unable to change your model, or indeed your repartee, because to include relevant factors would break it.
You answered a post for Stumpy, you can keep claiming otherwise all you want, and I can keep posting the conversation.
You miss MHD references, don't know how to use Einstein coefficients, which I had to learn 3x, without ANY expectation of application, and failed my recent rebuttal challenge about common MHD knowledge.

I am not sure what you want from me, all the evidence I have aims me at one conclusion; as you lapdog Magnnus would say: You're a fraud, and I don't know what you could do to overwhelm the facts you yourself provided for this believe.

And again, I am pro-anthropomorphic global "warming," if by warming you mean enthalpy increase, so I can't win the prize.