Official Global Warming thread (merged)

California has about one year of water left. Will you ration now? - LA Times

I doubt things are quite as drastic as the author makes them out; nonetheless, you guys who thought everything was A-OK simply because Boston got a lot of snow this year and it reached 0 F in Knoxville, need to realize the world is a far bigger place than your backyard.

This is what's going on in our own country. I imagine the world disparity is even greater.
 
My nativity? Specific heats and such? All I’m asking is where you got your numbers.

I used your numbers, you do the math.....sorry, auto correct couldn't handle naivety

Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg


Now you’re measuring climate change in ‘hundredths of thousands of inches’?

No, just saying that I am used to micro measurements so when I say measurable I am not talking about 10's of degrees. But you keep deflecting....

Is this a bad attempt at a racist joke? You’ve totally lost me.

Is this a bad attempt to deflect or make some kind of stupid joke? Planet warms up due to CO2 we get more plant life, more water vapor in the air, hot and humid to me equates to jungle does it not to you? You ever been to the Everglades in the middle of the summer?
…

Why would you equate jungle with race? Poor attempt BW, but most of your stuff is.
 
Yes, clearing the forests in central America disrupted moisture transport systems and decreased rainfall (changing regional climate).

Some believe humans can't impact climate. History shows otherwise.

Like the Mayans cut down enough trees with stone axes to make a freaking difference. I think the aliens did it myself.
 
Clouds form when water condenses. Water condenses when saturation humidity is reached, which increases with temperature. The warmer it is, the more water vapor ends up in the air (specific humidity) no matter how you slice it.

You got there eventually but quit throwing around terms you heard someone else say. Saturation temperature, 100% humidity, dewpoint......all the same thing. Saturation humidity.....hmmmm.

The warmer it is the more water vapor ends up in the air? Las Vegas calls BS. Warmer air will hold more moisture but the moisture has to be there to go into the vapor phase.
 
No, I mean if water is a positive feedback then why after it warms, more water vaporizes and warms more, and then more water vaporizes and warms more, and on and on? What stops the warming?

Climate change only happens during the day, didn't you know that?
 
Well, night time for one and to a lesser extent the dissipation of heat via the second law of thermodynamics. You are essentially asking why we don't get hotter and hotter during a sunny day. If Earth didn't rotate, we would continue to get hotter and hotter.

Another aspect is that as air (and water vapor therein) heats up, it can rise if it is even slightly warmer than the air around it. As air rises, it adiabatically cools meaning it changes temperature purely due to pressure change, not a change in energy. This is why it gets cooler the higher one goes up in elevation/altitude in the troposphere- as one increases in altitude one has less atmospheric mass above, meaning less pressure pushing down due to gravity. If the air cools to the dewpoint temperature (saturation humidity), the water vapor condenses into a cloud. When this occurs, we have several positive and negative climate feedbacks occurring sometimes simultaneously, here are two examples:

clouds have a high albedo (reflectivity) and reflect incoming solar radiation (negative feedback, cooling)

clouds absorb and reradiate thermal infrared radiation from the Earth (positive feedback, warming)

Also, as temperatures cool at night, they can reach saturation humidity and cause water vapor to condense or sublimate as dew or frost as well. This is another mechanism for regulating humidity besides precipitation and cloud formation.

It is a dynamic and complex system, thus it doesn't heat on and on here on Earth. However, such a heat loop is exactly what has occurred on Venus. Instead of water being the principle greenhouse gas there like it is on Earth, it is-- yep, carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide does not condense or precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily, does not form reflective clouds, but does dissolve in water which can lead to it forming carbonate rocks here on Earth typically with the help of sea life such as coral.

so you are saying it is colder at 100,000 ft because of a drop in pressure? If that were true then we wouldn't be able to keep the inside of the space station warm......unless you think it is pressurized to 14.7 psi.
 
Mars is a good bit colder than Earth, in large part due to not having much of an atmosphere.


This summer it will be hot, next winter it will be cold. These events do not conflict with climate change in any way.

Mars is a good bit cooler than the earth because of being 140,000,000 miles further away from the sun. Good try though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
California has about one year of water left. Will you ration now? - LA Times

I doubt things are quite as drastic as the author makes them out; nonetheless, you guys who thought everything was A-OK simply because Boston got a lot of snow this year and it reached 0 F in Knoxville, need to realize the world is a far bigger place than your backyard.

This is what's going on in our own country. I imagine the world disparity is even greater.
Jay Famiglietti is the senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech and a professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine.

Psh, you academics and your alarmism. That writer probably doesn't have a clue. Nothing to see here folks! It's business-as-usual until the end of times!

São Paulo, South America’s Largest City, Will Run Out of Water by June
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Sorry, I can’t give you feedback until you show your work.

The specific heat of air is 716 J/kG K. The density of air is 1.3 kg/m cubed. 1 watt is 1 J/sec. So. In 60 seconds, you'd get a temperature rise of: .2*60/716/1.3=.013 C

So in one hundred years, one meter square of area will rise 1.3 deg C.

Answer, I don't give a rats behind. IMO, this is unmeasurable.
 
Milankovitch Cycles ftw.

Makes more sense than anything I have seen yet.

I'm sorry, do you believe the Earth's tilt or timing of the aphelion/perihelion was very different 200 years ago? Milankovitch Cycles are mathematically known and operate on timescales of thousands of years. They explain glacial and interglacial cycles of the Quaternary. They are not part of current climate change. Anyone claiming otherwise is either not knowledgeable on the subject or a deliberate hack. Feel free to look this up. the shortest cycle operates on 21,000 intervals and we should be cooling, not warming, at this point if Milankovitch Cycles were driving current climate change. And in fact global climate was on a slight cooling trend... until the industrial revolution when anthropogenic warming overwhelmed orbital forcings.

This isn't conjecture, this is observable fact. Why would you make a comment like you did when you don't understand what you are referencing? Why is this an emotional issue for you that necessitates grabbing at any straw to find a way to deny reality?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
I'm sorry, do you believe the Earth's tilt or timing of the aphelion/perihelion was very different 200 years ago? Milankovitch Cycles are mathematically known and operate on timescales of thousands of years. They explain glacial and interglacial cycles of the Quaternary. They are not part of current climate change. Anyone claiming otherwise is either not knowledgeable on the subject or a deliberate hack. Feel free to look this up. the shortest cycle operates on 21,000 intervals and we should be cooling, not warming, at this point if Milankovitch Cycles were driving current climate change. And in fact global climate was on a slight cooling trend... until the industrial revolution when anthropogenic warming overwhelmed orbital forcings.

This isn't conjecture, this is observable fact. Why would you make a comment like you did when you don't understand what you are referencing? Why is this an emotional issue for you that necessitates grabbing at any straw to find a way to deny reality?

Anyone claiming they understand what effects these long natural climate cycles might have on current climate are loony birds. But, someone who understands cycles would surely know the longer cycles are the more dominant cycles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Anyone claiming they understand what effects these long natural climate cycles might have on current climate are loony birds. But, someone who understands cycles would surely know the longer cycles are the more dominant cycles.

Are you saying you don't think Milankovitch cycles are real, or that you don't think the geologic record is real, or both? I'd like to hear more about how the effects of decreasing sun angles, seasonality, and intensity are unknowable, in your opinion. I don't understand how you can say studying the past to understand the present and future is "loony" or whatever. What is this idea based on?

Then, maybe you can explain how that fits in to the last 150 years of warming, "coinciding" with a rise in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that apparently isn't "dominant" because it isn't a longer term phenomenon. Seriously, could you explain how phenomena that are "long-term" are thus more dominant? That's a really fascinating claim that I would enjoy hearing examples of.

Seems pretty obvious to me that a global phenomenon with no natural analog is perfectly able to supersede the gentle long-term trends of orbital shifts dependent on long-term positive feedback loops that are being undermined, if one just follows the data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
The specific heat of air is 716 J/kG K. The density of air is 1.3 kg/m cubed. 1 watt is 1 J/sec. So. In 60 seconds, you'd get a temperature rise of: .2*60/716/1.3=.013 C

So in one hundred years, one meter square of area will rise 1.3 deg C.

Answer, I don't give a rats behind. IMO, this is unmeasurable.
But you just said you were used to "micro measurements"...

Props for attempting math, but Earth is not spherical shell of homogenous gas. Climate models are not a chem 100 plug-and-chug problem you can do in your head. And even if they were, your attempt would still be screwy (easily demonstrated by unit analysis).

This is a good place to start if you'd like to learn how climate sensitivity works:

How sensitive is our climate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
But you just said you were used to "micro measurements"...

Props for attempting math, but Earth is not spherical shell of homogenous gas. Climate models are not a chem 100 plug-and-chug problem you can do in your head. And even if they were, your attempt would still be screwy (easily demonstrated by unit analysis).

This is a good place to start if you'd like to learn how climate sensitivity works:

How sensitive is our climate?

Yeah sucks when math gets in the way doesn't it.
 
But you just said you were used to "micro measurements"...

Props for attempting math, but Earth is not spherical shell of homogenous gas. Climate models are not a chem 100 plug-and-chug problem you can do in your head. And even if they were, your attempt would still be screwy (easily demonstrated by unit analysis).

This is a good place to start if you'd like to learn how climate sensitivity works:

How sensitive is our climate?

Props for throwing out one measurement and then extrapolating a while science experiment from it. However that how this works isn't it?

P.S. the math is as solid as your data.
 
Last edited:
It was 80 here today. I think that I will extrapolate an entire theory on climate change, ice caps melting, the sun sploding, and carbon credits from it. Let's not forget that it was 10 degrees here 10 days ago, although that rapid change can be used to indicate permafrost loss I'm sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Advertisement



Back
Top