|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 31, 2016 22:30:11 GMT
Nautonnier Thank you for the explanation, rather more sophisticated than mine! I think you are agreeing with the comment I made above. Yes and no I am not sure you can saturate the absorption band for water and unlike CO 2 water can precipitate out and start the hydrologic cycle all over again. I think it was Lindzen talked about the world's Iris as clouds form to increase albedo and Willis Eisenbach from WUWT with the thermostat idea for convective weather. Then add the Hadley and Ferrel cells carrying heat to the poles. The entire atmosphere is a heat engine driven by water changing state.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 31, 2016 23:14:31 GMT
.... and Earth's atmosphere is not an enclosed greenhouse.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 1, 2017 21:45:32 GMT
It appears that the concentration of water in the atmosphere varies between 0 and 4%, and is highly variable.
Nautonnier, water is a highly polar molecule, and I would be surprised if its atmospheric concentration was insufficient for saturation in its absorption bands, even in low concentration areas like the Poles.
However, I admit I lack real data. Partial saturation would lead to huge variations in atmospheric radiation input/output in different areas, depending on local concentrations.
I am not sure how my comment sits with the known high cool down rate at night in desert areas!
What other factors might control that?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 2, 2017 0:45:17 GMT
It appears that the concentration of water in the atmosphere varies between 0 and 4%, and is highly variable. Nautonnier, water is a highly polar molecule, and I would be surprised if its atmospheric concentration was insufficient for saturation in its absorption bands, even in low concentration areas like the Poles. However, I admit I lack real data. Partial saturation would lead to huge variations in atmospheric radiation input/output in different areas, depending on local concentrations. I am not sure how my comment sits with the known high cool down rate at night in desert areas! What other factors might control that? First you have to define your terms. (Voltaire) What do you mean by cool down? This is not a 'clever' question. An arid area like a desert has little water vapor so will not exhibit wet adiabatic lapse rates and the heat content of the air (its enthalpy) is a lot lower. In consequence polar air which is very dry will rise in temperature faster for the same heat input as its enthalpy is lower. If as seems to be the case global enthalpy has reduced due to lowered humidity in sufficient areas of the world. The measured temperature changes could be entirely due to lowered enthalpy and nothing to do with 'trapped heat' at all.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 2, 2017 5:04:54 GMT
Thank you. I had forgotten the significantly increased enthalpy of humid air.
No clouds and low humidity would go a long way towards explaining rapid day/night desert changes.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 4, 2017 10:42:29 GMT
www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/December satellite Anomaly +0.24 degC. At the current rate of decline, in a few more months it might become apparent that "The Pause" is alive and well. We might even get into a situation where global temperatures are negative against the 30 year average. The provided explanations would be good for a laugh, but nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 4, 2017 12:00:16 GMT
www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/December satellite Anomaly +0.24 degC. At the current rate of decline, in a few more months it might become apparent that "The Pause" is alive and well. We might even get into a situation where global temperatures are negative against the 30 year average. The provided explanations would be good for a laugh, but nothing else. Any drop in temperature will be claimed to be 'expected' as an effect of CO2. Unfortunately, there are people that will happily believe that CO2 causes more droughts globally while globally increasing rain.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 4, 2017 13:58:48 GMT
They do cover themselves with "more droughts and floods".
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 5, 2017 5:47:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 5, 2017 7:32:12 GMT
In large part looking at ocean uptake is robbing peter to pay paul. The surface ocean is well known to trail an atmospheric forcing by somewhere between 8 and 15 years. Folks these are the feedback figures! Most of this new evidence is what the warmists were banking on to continuing the warming after limiting emissions. So its just another philosophical shift by the warmist community and without careful quantification nobody will be the wiser. Gotta watch that pea folks!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 5, 2017 9:43:51 GMT
I'm a thimble man.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 5, 2017 10:22:23 GMT
In large part looking at ocean uptake is robbing peter to pay paul. The surface ocean is well known to trail an atmospheric forcing by somewhere between 8 and 15 years. Folks these are the feedback figures! Most of this new evidence is what the warmists were banking on to continuing the warming after limiting emissions. CO2 went up by 3.71ppm in 2016. We may well be limiting 'our' CO2/CH4 outputs but the horse had already bolted ( obviously!). We were only ever going to light the blue touch paper and Mother N. would do the rest. Northern soils aside the numbers folk bandy around regarding permafrost dwarf our past, and potential future, outputs of GHG's and the 2013 report into the revelations of the Siberian ice caves ( and past parameters for permafrost melt out) . 2016 saw some of the monthly temp max's bust through 1.5c above pre-industrial so how long before 'non Nino influenced' temps rise to this level? Between 2013 and 2016 we put 0.2c on top of the global temp so we may be less than 5 years away from the 'permafrost melt out' temp. Let us also not forget the cowtan/wray temp series that includes the poorly sampled areas esp. the Arctic. We have all seen the physical changes to summer ice since 2000 so where is the 'real' Global temp figure sat right now? If the study confirming the NOAA study stands then we are already in serious trouble! The QBO issues appear to have knocked Nina's chances of appearing on the head so 2017's temps may not lag this 2016 record by very much. with Ocean conditions, across the ENSO regions hinting at another nino forming 2017 will make for a very interesting year!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 5, 2017 10:52:45 GMT
Every year is a "very interesting year" GW. After 20th January, this may turn out to be very interesting too.
Happy New Year.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 5, 2017 11:08:28 GMT
Back at You Ratty!
Yup! One helluva Year!!!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 5, 2017 12:01:37 GMT
It is amazing what you can do with fiddled figures for the incorrect metric - but eventually people start to compare what they are being told with what they are experiencing. I think you are seeing the last throes of political appointees putting figures out to 'embarrass' an incoming administration. I remember way back on 'the old board' here where a news item was linked to saying that farmers in Mongolia had lost thousands of cattle due to extreme cold and snow. One of the members of the board then produced a nice NASA graph and said no it wasn't that cold in Mongolia. NASA/NOAA could find itself in the same position soon but about more populous areas of the world.
|
|