|
Post by karlox on Feb 28, 2014 9:52:36 GMT
Sigur, thanks for your help... That brings more questions to me... -Less stratospheric water vapor might mean lower-troposphere water-vapor increase and viceversa? (less convention etc) -Less stratospheric water vapor after 2000 wouldn´t be opposite to what expected due to increase of Cosmic Rays as Sun enters a quieter mood? - Does stratospheric (and rare) water vapour ever escape to outer space? - Cloud Albedo rises due to more cloud formation according to Svenkmark´s theories. Or that cloud formation refers to LOW CLOUDS only? Have a doubt here: Cloud cover increases albedo though higher ´clouds´ bear higher reflection figures? What about low fog clouds? Thanks for your patience!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 28, 2014 17:15:28 GMT
Sigur, thanks for your help... That brings more questions to me... -Less stratospheric water vapor might mean lower-troposphere water-vapor increase and viceversa? (less convention etc) -Less stratospheric water vapor after 2000 wouldn´t be opposite to what expected due to increase of Cosmic Rays as Sun enters a quieter mood? - Does stratospheric (and rare) water vapour ever escape to outer space? - Cloud Albedo rises due to more cloud formation according to Svenkmark´s theories. Or that cloud formation refers to LOW CLOUDS only? Have a doubt here: Cloud cover increases albedo though higher ´clouds´ bear higher reflection figures? What about low fog clouds? Thanks for your patience! Karlox: The relationship of the strat H2O vapor and trops H2O vapor has not been established that I know off. I don't know the effect of cosmic rays and Strat water vapor. Water vapor escape? Prob, I have read that the hydrogen molecules are absorbed, potentially increasing the level of H2O within the atmosphere. This is not an area that I have much knowledge. I would have to re-visit Svensmark's theory as to cloud height etc. Low fog clouds capture heat because of the RH of the air. The high clouds seem to be net negative. The H2O/cloud relationship is one of intense debate. Part of the sensitivity from increased CO2. I think your questions are great questions, and are being explored. I have not read anything conclusive, in regards to your questions. And my good man...you are now asking important questions that as far as I know no one has yet answered with any degree of success.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 28, 2014 19:11:19 GMT
The velocity of the molecules determine whether they escape the atmosphere. We know that H2 can go we know O2 and N2 stay so H2O will likely be stuck.
This is supported by the presence of H2O in the atmosphere.
The particular velocity needs to be above escape velocity to go that is lower on the moon thus no atmosphere. CO2 is well stuck so we also have life on earth.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 28, 2014 21:31:01 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? Sig, I have to disagree with you. While the Northeast is enjoying Polar Vortex N, the Arctic has been much warmer then normal. The big pool of warm water in the North Pacific caused a blocking high over the Western U.S. in Feb and sent all your heat up to the pole to be radiated away. All you got was the bill. :-)
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Feb 28, 2014 22:20:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2014 1:11:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2014 1:13:37 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? Sig, I have to disagree with you. While the Northeast is enjoying Polar Vortex N, the Arctic has been much warmer then normal. The big pool of warm water in the North Pacific caused a blocking high over the Western U.S. in Feb and sent all your heat up to the pole to be radiated away. All you got was the bill. :-) Yes, earlier, but now it is cold in the Arctic as well. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 1, 2014 2:20:18 GMT
Putting warm air over the Arctic will allow it to radiate out into space very well. I think we worry to much and any presence that we know the energy content of the earth is certainly false. Temperature average where we claim to know the average to a lower uncertainty than the change we are purporting are important is giving a 2 dimensional concept to much importance in a multidimensional energy system.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2014 3:01:01 GMT
Putting warm air over the Arctic will allow it to radiate out into space very well. I think we worry to much and any presence that we know the energy content of the earth is certainly false. Temperature average where we claim to know the average to a lower uncertainty than the change we are purporting are important is giving a 2 dimensional concept to much importance in a multidimensional energy system. Very very true words.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Mar 1, 2014 8:57:32 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? Sig, I have to disagree with you. While the Northeast is enjoying Polar Vortex N, the Arctic has been much warmer then normal. The big pool of warm water in the North Pacific caused a blocking high over the Western U.S. in Feb and sent all your heat up to the pole to be radiated away. All you got was the bill. :-) Right. The resident Blocking High in upper layers has been wandering around Beiring Strait Area and stuck within Polar Circle conditioning NH winter and pushing additional heat into the Pole... Again I wonder relation of such High with North Pacific warm pool and with accumulative heat (increased trade winds) in western Pacific down to deep ocean due to prevailing La Niña-La Nada conditions past years(there is perhaps where the missing heat is. talking about PACIFIC?) this Pacific configuration is been building up or preserving the warmth pool in North Pacific during past months?. I am getting increasingly convinced that any major climatic or weather trend is related to the Pacific Ocean cycles and events...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2014 17:43:05 GMT
Karlox: The Atlantic and Pacific both have world wide effects on climate/weather.
They do phase at different time intervals, which adds to the chaos. CO2 is a bit player in a large play.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 1, 2014 20:11:51 GMT
Karlox: The Atlantic and Pacific both have world wide effects on climate/weather. They do phase at different time intervals, which adds to the chaos. CO2 is a bit player in a large play. Since I know you like to read papers: soda.tamu.edu/references/Paper_Bratcher_Giese_GRL_2002.pdf They predicted within 4 years a cooling phase would begin. pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf"Synchronized chaos" The AMO will be in sync with the PDO within 5-10 years. That means several decades of no warming. Couple that with a weaker sun. The evidence is pointing toward global cooling, which means worse weather than we've had over the past 20+ years. As the AGW cult already believes [wrongly] hurricanes and tornado activity are "unprecedented", one can only imagine as the NH cools and weather becomes more like the 50's-70's what the cultists will say. Even in the face of 20+ years of no warming and what appears to be trending toward undeniable cooling of the planet, they will still blame it on global warming and chant the same mantras. As the Arctic returns to its state of more ice, the Antarctic will begin in the other direction so we'll get to hear the same horror stories about the South Pole. Liars and charlatans they are, all of them.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2014 21:20:34 GMT
Yep....I do like to do read papers.
Will read the one you posted tonight or in the morning.
Nice balmy day here, -13F at 3:19pm. Believe it will be a new record for lowest high since humans started using those false mercury columns to think they could measure temperature in these here parts.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2014 22:30:13 GMT
Ok.....just looked at forecast for tonight........WTF........-32F on the 1st of March?
Ayep.......that issssss a tad bit cooler than "normal".
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 2, 2014 1:52:02 GMT
I think the Northern Hemisphere weather has just switched [Jet-Stream move?] to a more "normal" pattern.
Its raining/snowing again in California.
The forecast is for some anticyclonic weather in Europe. End of the "conveyor belt" of depressions from across the Atlantic?
Meanwhile our [Melbourne] incredibly dry Summer rolls on. 32C on Wednesday. We've had 15mm of rain in about 3 months. My grape crop simply dried up and died.[The vine itself was fine - it just grows around two sides of my house, and was making indecent advances towards the third].
|
|