|
Post by trbixler on Feb 22, 2014 17:18:53 GMT
Obama's CO2 blanket fails to protect Chicago. Maybe the heat is buried deep in some ocean or lake! "Record Number Of Chicagoans Without Water Due To Frozen Pipes" "CHICAGO (CBS) — City crews are scrambling as a record number of people are without water because of frozen pipes. And, as CBS 2?s Dorothy Tucker reports, relief for those suffering seems like a long way off. Some residents have taken to shoveling snow into buckets and then boiling it as their only water source. “It’s been off since last Friday,” said Louis Harbison. That’s some 168 hours without one of life’s basic necessities. “It’s really frustrating,” said Pauline Harbison. “Putting snow in a pot and you know melting it for water and pouring it over for the stool to flush. You can’t take a bath. You can’t take a shower.”" link
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Feb 23, 2014 8:46:27 GMT
An interesting post by Ren on TallBloke's blog: How did the polar vortex lock? In October 2013 there was a decrease in solar activity, as evidenced by the growth of cosmic rays at that time. This decline resulted in a short-term rise in temperature in the stratosphere, the ozone zone. As a result, the temperature rise was halted polar vortex, which is picking up speed in the winter. Continued here: tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/ren-how-did-the-polar-vortex-lock/
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Feb 23, 2014 19:57:21 GMT
Not much sign of "winter" at Svalbard either which is some norwegian island located about 80~ degrees north:
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 26, 2014 21:27:36 GMT
ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpDemonstration of how quickly Arctic temperatures can fall. Does this presage a fundamental change in winter weather patterns? N America back to more normal [warmer?] weather Arctic Ice recovery North of Norway? Much colder weather in March for Europe?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2014 0:54:07 GMT
ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpDemonstration of how quickly Arctic temperatures can fall. Does this presage a fundamental change in winter weather patterns? N America back to more normal [warmer?] weather Arctic Ice recovery North of Norway? Much colder weather in March for Europe? No, this is an effect of how fast heat leaves the planet up there during winter. What we seem to have now is a very large area of sub average temperatures. The planet is trying to conserve heat now. I know that this sounds screwy, but extended cold actually does portray the potential of warmth later.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 27, 2014 2:14:31 GMT
"The planet is trying to conserve heat now. I know that this sounds screwy, but extended cold actually does portray the potential of warmth later."
Sigurdur, I am sorry but I don't understand this. Could you expand on comment please?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2014 2:39:03 GMT
Doug: When surface temperatures are higher, the amount of radiation leaving is also higher. There is normally only so much cold on the planet, which is spread over small areas near the poles.
This winter, and now as of late more pronounced, has a wide area of cold, even tho the Arctic has cooled as well. Antarctica is also colder than average, so now as a whole we are talking a shift in surface area that is colder than average. I am not talking the 30 year mean, I am talking the present mean value.
The cold area radiates less heat to the atmosphere, so has less pressure to cool as it is already cold. Kinda like the curve of a boiling pot of water. The temperature of the water will fall faster at 210F than it does at 100F if the air temp remains constant at 90F. I wouldn't really be too concerned if the cool was only in the NH area. But this cool is wider in Antarctica than in recent times, so the net effect is a larger area of the planet is cold, present values.
The sun is radiating a constant supply of Wm2. The earth must feel it is getting to cold, so it is responding by radiating less.
Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2014 2:40:33 GMT
The above is based on our present understanding of cause/effect.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 27, 2014 4:37:11 GMT
Thanks
I think I understand you - a sort of application of Le Chatelier's Principle!!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2014 6:06:43 GMT
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Feb 27, 2014 9:56:52 GMT
Doug: When surface temperatures are higher, the amount of radiation leaving is also higher. There is normally only so much cold on the planet, which is spread over small areas near the poles. This winter, and now as of late more pronounced, has a wide area of cold, even tho the Arctic has cooled as well. Antarctica is also colder than average, so now as a whole we are talking a shift in surface area that is colder than average. I am not talking the 30 year mean, I am talking the present mean value. The cold area radiates less heat to the atmosphere, so has less pressure to cool as it is already cold. Kinda like the curve of a boiling pot of water. The temperature of the water will fall faster at 210F than it does at 100F if the air temp remains constant at 90F. I wouldn't really be too concerned if the cool was only in the NH area. But this cool is wider in Antarctica than in recent times, so the net effect is a larger area of the planet is cold, present values. The sun is radiating a constant supply of Wm2. The earth must feel it is getting to cold, so it is responding by radiating less. Make sense? Sigur, I consider you have by far much more sound knowledge and scientific reading skills than me. And best of all you also believe there´s much more science that has not been settled regarding climate than what is claimed to be known. I also believe this forum misses participation of qualified non-skeptical partners -so I read Skeptical Science to compensate- and that means quite a mess of claims and counter-claims for a layman like me... but MUST read and follow both parties to draw my own -unimportant- conclusions... Well, this part also refers to other recent post by you in other threads (regarding skepticism) Said that, when you talk about "colder" than normal surface means less radiation back into space that is so in the upper atmosphere and this is how CO2 green-house effect is being explained by AGW. Roughly: As we ascend from ground up to stratosphere and as O2 and air gets thinner, relative concentrations of CO2 vs O2 sharply increase, there is a layer in which none escaping radiation is radiated back to earth; and it is very very cold up there. So C02 increase (mainly in tropopause) elevates this boundary layer to a COLDER level meaning LESS energy leaving the planet. So -my conclusion and best understanding- it is upper layers heating-cooling and displacements the "breathing" of the planet alternatively cooling-warming our atmosphere... And I also got ´the feeling´ Poles are sort of our open windows to equilibrate temps, since atmosphere is thinner there and any extra heat added entering poles areas either by changing ocean currents or Blocking High patterns -like this winter´s- will much more easily irradiate into space, specially in winter time in NH Perhaps Sudden Stratospheric Warming depicts what I mean? link
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2014 15:48:37 GMT
Karlox: You are a human being so your conclusion is important. Skeptical Science is a propaganda site. One sided and very dubious scientific merit. If you get down to the nuts and bolts in regards to papers, they will ban you as they only want agreement.
But it is always good to read how convoluted some thinking can actually get.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Feb 27, 2014 18:30:02 GMT
Karlox: You are a human being so your conclusion is important. Skeptical Science is a propaganda site. One sided and very dubious scientific merit. If you get down to the nuts and bolts in regards to papers, they will ban you as they only want agreement. But it is always good to read how convoluted some thinking can actually get. Yes indeed it is a one-side view propaganda place I wouldn´t even dare to ask or comment for my non-knowledge is clear. But I did figure it out or understood somehow how CO2 Green House effects works according to them (I´ve tried to explain it in my own words in previous post) What do you think about it? So C02 effect does exists BUT I am very ´confident´ that quite different not-well-known mechanisms react and are triggered (at different time escales) to ´compensate´this either cooling or warming trend besides certain point. As I understand most atmospheric humidity and HEAT content -besides ocean´s heat content- is placed between tropics and thus extra CO2 there raises last CO2 exchange layer with outher espace, radiating less, I assume that extra heat might cause positive anomalies round Norh Pole -like our stubborn North Pacific Blocking but once there under thin winter Poles atmospere Heat´s got an open window to radiate to espace, so this Artic warming might in fact mean Eart´s cooling, as can be seen in Antartica? Should More frequent SSWs be showing that burst of heat radiation into espace is compensating previous year´s warming? Got too many questions and little knowledge... mind my ´wanderings´...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2014 18:47:29 GMT
Karlox: A SSW is like blowing a wall out of a room when it is -30C outside. The heat leaves the building, will continue to leave the building until that wall is remade.
The same applies to a SSW event.
CO2 in the troposphere just doesn't do much. H2O vapor is what controls the flow of warmth, in effect also retains the warmth. H2O is a very funny item in how it acts/reacts etc. Phase changes, which we had a somewhat convoluted discussion about, are part of this funny behavior. H2O vapor not only reflects heat, but is also a source sink of heat. This is best demonstrated in desert areas. The temp rises rapidly, hits a peak, and as soon as solar influence leaves, the temp falls rapidly. Without the H2O, it would be even worse.
The bands over lap enough that H2O just basically blocks out CO2 influence. Even in low humidity areas such as deserts.
In the strat, H2O vapor is actually low, altho there seems to be an ebb and flow there as well. This is starting to be somewhat understood, but measurements have been variable, so results are subject to large error bars. Even in the Strat it wouldn't take much H2O vapor to block any measurable effect of CO2.
During MIS-6, CO2 was approx the same as today, solar radiance was much the same as today, but temps were approx 5.0C+ warmer than present. What seems to have been different was that H2O vapor was higher. No one knows why...prob something to do with the sun as that is the only cause/effect that I can come up with. (Svensmak perhaps?)
MIS-11, which lasted 40,000+ years seems to be similar to our current Holocene period. But MIS-11 appears to have been a cooler interglacial overall. Seems the Holocene is a mix of both perhaps?
SS wants to concentrate on only CO2 being a climate driver and ignore all the Astro physics guys. I don't think this is prudent. They also want to ignore the paleo geologist guys.....again not prudent.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is very important WHERE it is to really have any temperature effect. Just as we must know where the H2O vapor is.
All I know for sure is that it appears there is one hell of a lot that we don't know.
And I do know that the oceans have not all of a sudden changed their physical properties that only during the past 10 years have they become a heat sink. In fact, I find that one pretty funny, but then there are fools born every day.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2014 22:35:27 GMT
www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstractStratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change
|
|