|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 6, 2009 19:07:08 GMT
[trimmed] It's very likely that the effect of clouds depends on atmospheric temperature, down to "snowball Earth" levels. One thing that water vapor does a very effective job of is raising heat up into the atmosphere. This is done by transporting water from surface level, where heat is added to form vapor, up into the atmosphere, where heat is lost to form rain. As people have pointed out before, CO2 IR absorption is saturated at low altitudes, but at higher altitudes, where the atmosphere is thinner, IR absorption is lower, giving IR an easier path to space. Where moderation comes into effect has to do with relative humidity and the affect of atmospheric temperature on the ability of the atmosphere to hold water. The absolute humidity increases exponentially with temperature for a constant relative humidity. What that means is that as temperature rises, the ability of moisture to stay in the air during overnight low temperatures decreases. And that means that as the temperature rises, more heat is raised into the atmosphere where it has a better chance of radiating out to space as latent heat of evaporation. And THAT is why I keep telling the warmies that "Climate Change" is a better name than "Global Warming". Doesn't mean AGW isn't going to happen, just that it will look a lot more like chaotic weather (which we are seeing) than monotonic rises in annual temperature (which we aren't seeing). Interesting post. Would you say that chaotic temperature patterns are better able to shed heat than monotonic ones?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 6, 2009 19:26:50 GMT
Jim, Can you give all us skeptics a definition of what the difference is between NORMAL chaotic weather and ANTHROPOGENIC chaotic weather. Can you give us an index to track like 2 inches of rain divided by the hours that it fell in PLUS Samphir Simpson scale for Hurricanes times 25 PLUS the number of tornadoes times 5 PLUS the change in temps during a day divided the hours to change. And then if you don't mind, can you back cast that about 1000 years or so. Thanks, Dopey I'm not a meterologist or climate scientist, and I'm not being paid by you, so watch it wit the demands. I think the easiest way to demonstrate that "chaotic climate" is happening here and now is the record extremes. Statistically, we should have fewer and fewer records over time -- that's the nature of statistics. And yet we keep having records -- longest drought, heaviest rain / flood, hottest summer, etc. You mentioned hurricanes -- look at the recent seasons versus previous seasons on record. There is a very clear increase (but not monotonic, as the warmies would claim) in the number of named storms. Likewise, there are prolonged droughts in areas that were never subject to drought, and then massive rains and flooding on century flood scales. "I think the easiest way to demonstrate that "chaotic climate" is happening here and now is the record extremes. Statistically, we should have fewer and fewer records over time"
You are probably right - but you need to think what you mean by 'time'. The degree and accuracy of measurements and the number of observations has been increasing continually. 300 years ago a series of intense hurricanes in Florida may have gone totally unremarked apart perhaps from a few more ships being lost 'in a storm'. Now a storm can increase to tropical storm force in mid-Atlantic for 6 hours before weakening and dissipating - and it is counted and given a name. Measurement capabilities have increased hugely in capabilities even in the last 10 years and this improvement will continue. This makes maintaining a 'baseline' or comparator level of 'chaotic' is extremely difficult and tends to be a perception rather than reality. Climate is ALWAYS changing - so perhaps measurements at a specific level of accuracy need to be kept for a period of time equal to the longest cycle in the changes of the climate. This is not over your brief life time - or my longer one - this is probably at least 500 years and one could argue should be several thousand. So you are right about how you could quantify 'more chaotic' - but you should understand the extended timescale of the enterprise involved and the order of magnitude increase in measurement capabilities. Your comments that it is getting 'more chaotic' are therefore probably not correct unless you add the period of time over which it has and have a metric standard for 'chaotic' that is applied over that entire period. This is the obverse of the AGW climatologist's "Its only weather" comment.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 6, 2009 20:11:31 GMT
I think we are on the same lines - 2 points: Today at 10:39am, nautonnier wrote: Yes, but I don't think the source is relevant. It's still H2O.The source is relevant as it has effectively been introduced from 'outside the system' it did not arrive as part of the normal hydrological cycle. If had arrived as rain then there would be in place humidity and a cooling effect from the rain reducing the transpiration rate of the irrigated plants. Whereas water from deep aquifers will be sprayed into less humid air onto hotter ground. So the normal balance of the feedback in the hydrological cycle are put out of kilter. Today at 10:39am, nautonnier wrote: Yes, there's a lot of that kind of thinking, though the modelers TRY to make allowance for microclimate by using a grid system within the GCM's. Many observers contend that the grid is nowhere near fine enough. For a chaotic system, no grid will be fine enough, and any putative net GW will be similarly scattered, not uniform. Yes, the granularity is very important. In some research recently we showed that if you have a grid say a degree of latitude and longitude in extent or more, a hurricane's winds average out and it is not apparent that there is one there from the gridded data. If the triggers in a chaotic system are hidden then how can you correctly drive the GCMs?
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 6, 2009 20:57:30 GMT
I think we are on the same lines - 2 points: Today at 10:39am, nautonnier wrote: Yes, but I don't think the source is relevant. It's still H2O.The source is relevant as it has effectively been introduced from 'outside the system' it did not arrive as part of the normal hydrological cycle. If had arrived as rain then there would be in place humidity and a cooling effect from the rain reducing the transpiration rate of the irrigated plants. Whereas water from deep aquifers will be sprayed into less humid air onto hotter ground. So the normal balance of the feedback in the hydrological cycle are put out of kilter. Today at 10:39am, nautonnier wrote: Yes, there's a lot of that kind of thinking, though the modelers TRY to make allowance for microclimate by using a grid system within the GCM's. Many observers contend that the grid is nowhere near fine enough. For a chaotic system, no grid will be fine enough, and any putative net GW will be similarly scattered, not uniform. Yes, the granularity is very important. In some research recently we showed that if you have a grid say a degree of latitude and longitude in extent or more, a hurricane's winds average out and it is not apparent that there is one there from the gridded data. If the triggers in a chaotic system are hidden then how can you correctly drive the GCMs? We're mostly in agreement. There will be some cooling from the deep source irrigation water, but the net result is more water in "the system." The ocean may be a bit deeper, its salinity just slightly less, and any "f*rcing" from the extra water vapor a permanent feature. I think you're right, we must IMMEDIATELY establish water cap and trade BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!! The Triassic would not be too soon. TIPPING POINT! TIPPING POINT! "You there! Is it true that you watered your bean field yesterday, Herr Mondragon? Let me see your papers! Aha! Your water license expired 2 weeks ago. Kommen sie mit mir!"
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 9, 2009 5:23:09 GMT
...Yeah , you 'r e right , a different planet, all the animals breathed in methane and shit oxygen... Yes, but I should point out that the past tense of shit is shat. A reference, you say? I'll be only too happy to provide a reference. It's not a lot of trouble, since I know what I'm talking about, here. Now, if I didn't know shit, I'd have a really hard time providing a reference and would have give you a rude answer, instead. But it's no problem, crakar-san: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shatGood pickup on the shit/shat thing Jorge. Keeping a close eye on my grammer i write, it just goes to show how important it is that we understand the past so we can talk in the future, or is that present? By the way Jym Ganahl has broken ranks with the consensus, he has decided to convert. www.theotherpaper.com/articles/2009/02/07/front/doc498b07c3e889d326202045.txtCheers Crakar-san
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 9, 2009 9:28:25 GMT
See the solution is simple to get rid of CO2 just get rid of people
Ahhh an environmentalists dream
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 9, 2009 18:11:25 GMT
See the solution is simple to get rid of CO2 just get rid of people Ahhh an environmentalists dream No lie, twawki-san. How many people have forgotten that Unabomber Ted Kaczynski was an econazi? Will he get a statue in his honor in 20 years? Or maybe share the first posthumous Nobel prize?
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 10, 2009 15:14:05 GMT
Yes, the granularity is very important. In some research recently we showed that if you have a grid say a degree of latitude and longitude in extent or more, a hurricane's winds average out and it is not apparent that there is one there from the gridded data. If the triggers in a chaotic system are hidden then how can you correctly drive the GCMs? Could you provide a citation for that research? One degree longitude is on the order of 70 miles. A degree of latitude shrinks poleward, but being less than 70 miles that sets an upper bound. Now, you look at a hurricane and very few will fit in a 70x70 box. So, I'm thinking a hurricane shows up just fine.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 16, 2009 4:42:56 GMT
...any AGW'ers out there to brainwash my mind with their thinking and make me like them. Make me believe AGW is happening. Any takers? Col, After all the debate are you now a believer?
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 16, 2009 10:33:33 GMT
Could you provide a citation for that research? One degree longitude is on the order of 70 miles. A degree of latitude shrinks poleward, but being less than 70 miles that sets an upper bound. Now, you look at a hurricane and very few will fit in a 70x70 box. So, I'm thinking a hurricane shows up just fine. Wouldn't the winds across 70 miles be in opposite directions due to spin? How many hurricanes would have an eye more than 70 miles wide? Maybe that's what they're referring to?
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Feb 16, 2009 15:42:03 GMT
Could you provide a citation for that research? One degree longitude is on the order of 70 miles. A degree of latitude shrinks poleward, but being less than 70 miles that sets an upper bound.
A degree of latitutde is almost the same everywhere, with slight change due to the oblateness of the earth. The distance between longitude lines shrinks, especially near the poles. The sense of your point is unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 16, 2009 16:18:44 GMT
I'm a skeptic, it's my birthday, and I'd like...... to claim my five free apocalyptic predictions. ;D
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 17, 2009 3:26:24 GMT
Here are some links www.alternet.org/environment/126910/firestorms_and_deep_freeze%3A_climate_change_may_bring_bothThe cult, still eager to get their hands on your carbon tax money, are trying to equate those who question the science behind their claims as "deniers". But as the cult changes their name from "global warming" to "catastrophic climate change" this is in effect an admission that their earlier prognostications have not come to pass. The attempt to claim that the severe cooling weather is the result of human caused global warming may look good in the science fiction film from which they apparently stole the idea (along with scenes used in Al Gore's movie), but it is not really science. The bottom line is that this is all about creating a new crisis as an excuse to take more money and freedom from you. economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global_Warming/Indian_experts_find_bacteria_to_beat_global_heat/articleshow/4134025.cmsNow, this bacteria has been there all along. This is not an invention or a development, they just stumbled across the thing. The point here is that the people pushing human-caused global warming are operating without all the facts. That should be obvious since their dire warnings have not come to pass. Which means we should not alter our lives or more to the point surrender our money and freedoms to them just yet.
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Feb 24, 2009 13:10:34 GMT
|
|