In case you don’t know, GCM = General Circulation Model and **water vapour feedback is a major part of them all.
**
The intention is to show that claims that there is no AGW are questioned by the same organization (NASA) that you’ve been using to define global warming, etc. Skeptics even funded an independent study which also ended up confirming AGW.
In addition, the NAS report was mentioned to show that connections between global warming and extreme weather have been explained in science reports.
Finally, the articles and links about extreme weather were presented to show that it has been taking place.
IOW, you’re trolling
Lots of things. If our drillers drill or our miners dig too deep, they will pierce the ceiling of the Stygian Abyss and release a flood of phogiston. Phlogiston has a thermodynamic effect but is not itself affected by conventional thermodynamics, so no matter how accurate our climate models, they all go out the window after the phlogiston flood.
-If we see the apocalypse, IIRC one of the Horsemen will boil a third of the world’s oceans. Talk about water vapor! And that doesn’t even consider the effects of the Second Coming- Greenpeace says Jesus in the air would be bad for the atmosphere, not to mention all those souls floating off the planet in the Rapture, though obviously until it happens we don’t have any data with which to make predictions.
-Less dire, as more states pass laws allowing gay marriage, God’s wrath will manifest in a variety of ways, contradicting all current theories. Energy levels may seem to be dropping while storms increase in intensity, etc. The lack of any plausible mechanism will actually be the proof that God is doing it!
-That Duck Dynasty guy (the Redneck Ayatollah) could issue a fatwa against liberals live on Fox News. In the end that could put an end to all this global warming talk. Similarly, if the GOP holds the House and takes the Senate and the White House, President Ted Cruz could sign a proclamation declaring climate change to be a hoax. Scientific theories are like Tinkerbell you see; if people stop believing in them they stop being true. If a lot of people believe in them, Congress and the White House can nonetheless trump that through formal action. In the same vein, President Cruz could issue a proclamation empowering Tinkerbell even though no one believes in her, leaving her to solve any atmospheric pollution problems.
-Various critters like gnomes, faeries, gremlins and so on have been content to remain out of sight since around the time of the fall of the Roman Empire. One rogue wizard could change all that. Also, disruptions in the aether are not well understood and may have unpredictable effects. Or, if Mitch McConnell’s and Rand Paul’s fairy grandmothers ever stop their feuding and join forces, you might see all kinds of unexplained effects, like sudden glaciation of California, floods in NYC, and places like Kentucky and Texas spontaneously blooming into tropical paradises.
As you can see, it is a lot more complicated than most people think.
Who is claiming that?
Another troll goes on the filter.
How exactly does that follow?
Why should I go through the trouble of finding a cite for something if you do not claim to dispute it and do not even state that you are skeptical?
Ok, and how do you know that these other things were not in play during the Carboniferous Era, for example that there was not an excess of “phogiston” for whatever reason?
And please answer my questions from before:
-
Given your apparent position that water vapor feedback is not an important issue, can we assume for sake of discussion that it is minimal or non-existent?
-
The “AGW theory” (according to you) is that mankind’s CO2 emissions will result in an increase in the energy in the climate system, regardless of whether that increase is small in relation to other influences. Right?
-
Do you have any evidence at all as to how much extra energy was in the climate system during the Carboniferous Era; that it’s similar to where we are headed today; or that the rise in sea level during the Carboniferous Era was due to the extra energy you posit?
-
Do you have any other basis for your predictions besides comparison to the Carboniferous Era?
Not very many people these days, but a few. Here is one moron that claims it is not happening.
Why do I have to be either in agreement or skepticism? I said already that I am not a climate scientist. You’ve said some harsh things about people who aren’t paying enough attention to water vapor. Who knows, maybe there is something about it I don’t know, and considering the kind of board this is, maybe you can be the one to fill me in (since “fighting ignorance” is kind of the good deed of upstanding knowledgeable smart people). I am not the kind of person to promote a false agenda- I’ll take a look at the details and try to be honest about things.
But you aren’t forthcoming with those details. Why make such a big deal about water vapor then? It is like you are not speaking in good faith. A person could do that if they were playing some kind of game. Maybe there is a distinction between that and trolling, I’m not a mod either. Maybe you don’t know what you are talking about or just don’t have a story that stands a lot of scrutiny. ISTM there are people out there who want to divert attention away from carbon, CO2, and emissions when this topic comes up. Is that the game you’re playing?
Either you are skeptical of my claim or you aren’t.
Besides which, if you are simply ignorant and looking to be educated, then you should withdraw your apparently baseless arguments and apologize for wasting my time with them.
Here’s what you said before:
You made actual arguments and took actual positions. Now that you are being challenged on those positions, you go into evasion mode, ignoring simple, reasonable questions about your position and instead request cites for a proposition you don’t even dispute.
It looks to me like you are the one who is playing games.
Anyway, this is the last time I will ask you:
-
Given your apparent position that water vapor feedback is not an important issue, can we assume for sake of discussion that it is minimal or non-existent?
-
The “AGW theory” (according to you) is that mankind’s CO2 emissions will result in an increase in the energy in the climate system, regardless of whether that increase is small in relation to other influences. Right?
-
Do you have any evidence at all as to how much extra energy was in the climate system during the Carboniferous Era; that it’s similar to where we are headed today; or that the rise in sea level during the Carboniferous Era was due to the extra energy you posit?
-
Do you have any other basis for your predictions besides comparison to the Carboniferous Era?
These are simple reasonable questions and if you are discussing the matter in good faith, it should be no problem to answer them.
And
- How do you know that these other things were not in play during the Carboniferous Era, for example that there was not an excess of “phogiston” for whatever reason?
-
The water vapor feedback mechanic is how energy is transferred around the system, it doesn’t effect the emissivity of the atmosphere … but it does effect the Earth’s albedo.
-
I believe “AGW Theory” includes soot production and clear-cutting forests as well as CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. There may be a couple dozen more things we could add.
-
If Wikipedia is correct, then the average global temperatures were about the same. So then by definition, the energy levels would be about the same today as in the Carboniferous.
-
If the comparison to the Carboniferous Era is valid, then we have 100,000’s of years to correct this problem. I think the comparison fails since during the upper Carboniferous, continents were consolidating into the Pangaea, whereas today continents are spreading out.
-
The sun was cooler during the Carboniferous, how much so is just a guess.
Hope this helps … but I don’t own an air conditioner … any warmist that does is a hypocrite.
Skeptical of what claim? You’re cagey about your “point” about water vapor to such an extent that I don’t know what you’re even talking about.
Don’t tell me my position. If you have a point to make about water vapor, spit it out. What do you think, and why?
Yes, if by ‘climate system’ you include the oceans and the land.
Of course. Sea levels were as much as 350 feet higher then because there wasn’t much glaciation. The difference in the energy between the system then vs. now is the total energy of fusion of all that water. It takes 334 Joules to melt 1 gram of ice into water. Multiply that by 350 feet of ocean while keeping temperatures the same and you find the energy difference.
The evidence that we are heading that way now is the extensive documentation of melting glaciers and ice caps and the associated rise in sea levels. That ice would not, could not melt without an energy input. And guess where that energy is coming from?
Sure, simply following through on the reasoning wrt what we know about the behavior of CO2 and its changing concentration in the atmosphere.
Look at it this way. The Earth is an emitter of infrared radiation (energy). It tends to flow from the surface directly into space. However, molecules of CO2 intercept some of this energy. When they do they get a little unstable and, because of simple entropy, tend to spit this energy back out into their surroundings. So, each molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere acts as another emitter of infrared radiation. Thing is, there is no telling in which direction a molecule will emit that radiation- it could be in any direction. Some will end up going on into space anyway, but some infrared radiation will be retained in the atmosphere or at the surface instead. CO2 effectively randomly redirects infrared radiation. More CO2 -> more energy retained in the ‘climate system’.
That’s the scientific consensus.
Now if you don’t mind, tell me what the eff is your point about water vapor, and I’ll tell you if I’m skeptical, in agreement or what.
I’m afraid not. Under natural circumstances it takes that long for CO2 levels to change. But we’ve pushed the concentration of CO2 from maybe 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in only 200 years.
I can’t speak for Brazil, but I’ll share my concerns. Water vapor is 40%, by mass, of the products of combustion. This water vapor carries 2.1 kJ g[sup]-1[/sup] as it’s heat of condensation. Well, it condenses and I’m just wondering why this energy is ignored.
Try not to be afraid, especially things that suffer for rigid proof. You speak this with such certainty that man alone caused the additional 120 ppm, do you have quantitative proof of this?
That reminds me. Since some missing sink is absorbing around 55% of the fossil fuel CO2, what is the extra mass of plant life from our burnings? Assuming it is forests and grasslands that are doing the absorbing.
Most reject the ocean as a sink, it’s supposed to be actually releasing more CO2 than it absorbs, since it’s warming. That we still don’t know, it’s quite a mystery.
It’s fucking going somewhere. If there was no missing sink, the ppm would be around 550 already. The fear that the missing sink will somehow stop absorbing has been a topic for a few years now. Like so many things, the assumption that CO2 we release would just sit there in the atmosphere was wrong.
All the more ironic since we also hear the claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 10,000 years. If over half the CO2 humans have caused (extra CO2, not regular breathing out CO2) is already gone, you can’t very well also claim it’s going to stay aroun for 10,000 years.
I fact, the missing sink (or sinks) makes for an interesting thing. If mankind simply stopped adding CO2, the ppm would start dropping, faster than they have gone up. We would be back to 320 ppm in less than 50 years.
Science.
It’s like plutonium. It can be used for good or evil. But in either case, you don’t want to get any on you.
…
From 2012:
“NASA study solves case of Earth’s ‘missing energy’”
Also, from 2007:
“Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities”
https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences-moisture
Let’s all take a time-out and look at the gas laws.
The gist is that carbon levels were higher during the Carboniferous, this carbon was eventually stored underground in the form of (future) coal and oil, and now we’re digging it up and combusting it, putting that Carboniferous (and, of course, carbon from other ancient geological ages) carbon back into the atmosphere.
I can dig up the specifics eventually. In the meantime, do you mind pointing out what other sources are disrupting the CO2 equilibrium so much?
PV = nRT
This means that when pressure goes down, with equal volume and mass, temperature must go down. As pressure and temperature go down, this also lowers the air’s ability to hold water vapor in solution. Once the air is at saturation, any further reduction in either temperature or pressure will cause the water vapor to be expelled from solution, and changes the water phase from gaseous to liquid.
If we can remember that chemistry experiment with the beaker of water over the bunsen with a thermometer stuck in it, then we’d remember that as energy is being applied to the water, it’s temperature rises but only up to 100ºC. At this point, the energy is used to convert liquid water at 100ºC into gaseous water at 100ºC. Only when all the water is in it’s vapor form will the temperature start to rise again. The energy used to change waters to vapor is released back again when it condenses.
Back to our air parcel now, Here’s an infrared satellite photo of the USA. We can plainly see where water vapor is being actively converted to liquid rain, but we’re only seeing a part of the energy release, that which is escaping out into space. A part of the energy is used to lower the pressure, which causes more water to condense, releasing more energy, lowering the pressure …
… and the thing runs away, with basically only friction slowing it down. This is a Positive Feedback Mechanism, the mere act of condensing water vapor cause more water vapor to condense. Normally, the energy to bring water into it’s vapor form comes from the sun. We can make an atmospheric energy budget with just the sun’s input. However, the energy released when condensing water vapor from combustion … well this energy DIDN’T come from the sun, it comes from breaking the carbon bonds in whatever fossil fuel we’re burning.
I repeat my question, why is this energy ignored?
Off the top of my head some of the other sources “disrupting the CO[sub]2[/sub] equilibrium” would be the sun burns hotter today than during the Carboniferous, the actual composition of the atmosphere was different (35% O[sub]2[/sub]) … but the big one is the free flow of waters between the oceans. Once Central America blocked the Equatorial Pacific from the Atlantic, we plunged into a major Ice Age, about 30 million years ago. It’s just a theory about cause-and-effect, but that is something that would change CO[sub]2[/sub] levels.
The phrase “CO[sub]2[/sub] equilibrium” bothers me, I look at the ice core data and I see a sine wave, 100,000 year period and we are currently at a peak. There’s a scientific reason why this forms a wave, and not a straight horizontal line. Until we know why CO[sub]2[/sub] goes up and down like this, we’re in no position to say this will never go down again.
Why, exactly, did CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations go down 20,000 years ago?
Try2B Comprehensive, thank you for respecting the First Law of Thermodynamics, I thought I was the only one here. I can’t even come up with a Pit-worthy name to call you.
The aggregate heat from all the combustion of fossil fuels is being ignored? I wasn’t aware of that.
I wonder if it is negligible compared to the amount of heat the carbon released by that combustion will trap over its career in the atmosphere. I’m not a climate scientist, so it would take me awhile to figure out the answer to this.