AGW: atmospheric physics

[RollingThunder]

And you can show us in a lab how CO2 drives that irrespective of all evidence to the contrary that CO2 lags climate change?

Rises in CO2 don't lag climate change, they produce climate change. Lots of new research confirms that increasing CO2 leads and causes temperature increases. Too bad about your defunct denier cult myths.

Study: Carbon Dioxide Increase Caused End of Ice Age

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature

Both "studies" you posted have been thoroughly ripped to shreds. Once again your climate "scientists" have been found to be deficient in their mathematical skills.

LOLOLOLOLOL......riiiiight...."thoroughly ripped to shreds" by ignorant denier cult nutjobs on blogs......not by real scientists in peer-reviewed science journals....too bad you're too stupid to understand the difference, walleyed.....

 

[westwall]

Rises in CO2 don't lag climate change, they produce climate change. Lots of new research confirms that increasing CO2 leads and causes temperature increases. Too bad about your defunct denier cult myths.

Study: Carbon Dioxide Increase Caused End of Ice Age

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature

Both "studies" you posted have been thoroughly ripped to shreds. Once again your climate "scientists" have been found to be deficient in their mathematical skills.

LOLOLOLOLOL......riiiiight...."thoroughly ripped to shreds" by ignorant denier cult nutjobs on blogs......not by real scientists in peer-reviewed science journals....too bad you're too stupid to understand the difference, walleyed.....

Yeah, sure. Tell that to Gergis et all.....you truly are a illiterate nutjob.

 

[westwall]

That just goes to show how dumb this "Saigon" is. If I wanted his IP all it would take is a false label on a URLink which brings him to my web own page where I could embed whatever Java script I want, not just the harmless code tags under the # icon with the HTML editor used in this forum. I`m not interested in collecting other people`s IP. I collect books, guns and coins. But I do know for sure that he does not live in Finland.
All he has to do is run a finger across the keyboard,...if he lives in Finland that will produce an ASCII sequence that keyboards in other countries don`t. He won`t do it because he can`t.
As for :
"snow experts"...? Who are they? Silly question...! In the summer they work of course as "rain" or "sunshine experts".
Any sort of "snow expert" would have jumped off the wagon as soon as we get past "A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture" when it gets to "and dump more moisture, snow, Saigon a renowned snow expert says"

To "dump moisture" as rain or snow the moist air has to be cooled to below the dew point first, before it can "dump" anything.
That happens either with vertical convection or if a moist air mass arrives over a colder area !
I wonder if "snow experts" will say in New England that it`s gotten too warm for all that moisture to stay aloft and that`s why all these AGW "deniers" got dumped on
Major snowstorm headed for New England | Reuters

Yeah, I knew he wasn't in Finland either...they are far smarter than this twit. He's no doubt the sock of oltrakartrollingblunderfraud or one of that ilk.

On a more positive note I am heading to St. Petersburg on Monday for a friends wedding, so if he is in Finland I could arrange to meet him in the flesh!

Too bad You can`t work in a stop-over in Germany. If by any chance You ever plan a trip there I`ll have my ex-classmates roll out the red carpet for You and then you come back and visit me here with a load of Deli from Munich for me...I`ld kill for the real thing...But I`ld gladly share it with You, bro !
Have You ever tried "Leberkaes" or "Weisswurscht" ?

Actually the stuff they serve up in Milwaukee is just as good as in Munich. The only difference is, in Munich we don`t say "Weisswurst" we say "Weisswurscht"

Maybe I can lure You into a minor schedule change with a few videos from good old Munich ?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Xivq4eoFQ]Fliegerlied Hackerzelt Wiesn 2009 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmtksdSL1bE]Oktoberfest Munich 2010 - YouTube[/ame]


Most of my neighbors back home drive cars like that, and they could have You in St.Petersburg before You know it:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9rUwsbXWpw]Driving an Audi R8 V10 5.2 FSI on German Autobahn - Topspeed: 330 km/h - YouTube[/ame]

My days in Munchen are over (a towering hangover after drinking far too many litres of bier!)! Now, I go to Sinsheim or Munster to look at tanks! On the other hand......next time I do go, I will very happily make a detour to bring you some things from the Old Country!

I havn't been to your neck of the woods yet so I will definately get up there one of these years and I will be very happy to savor some good hospitality!

 

[Saigon]

Wailing Wall, Frank -

Perhaps it is time for both of you to accept that you simply can not understand this topic.

Both of you seemed to given up trying to understand anything some time back, and are increasingly relying on off-topic abuse and childish smears rather than actually establishing truth.

Really, Westwall, if you can not understand how raised humidity can mean more snow - there is absolutely no hope for you to ever understand this topic at all. It's just beyond you.

Yeah, I knew he wasn't in Finland either.

A case in point.

 

[westwall]

Wailing Wall, Frank -

Perhaps it is time for both of you to accept that you simply can not understand this topic.

Both of you seemed to given up trying to understand anything some time back, and are increasingly relying on off-topic abuse and childish smears rather than actually establishing truth.

Really, Westwall, if you can not understand how raised humidity can mean more snow - there is absolutely no hope for you to ever understand this topic at all. It's just beyond you.

Yeah, I knew he wasn't in Finland either.

A case in point.

Where's the increased temps. How is it that when the globe was warming the meme was no more snow, then when the globe started cooling the mantra became "oh yes we predicted that" which is an outright lie.

Face it buckwheat, your religion has been exposed as a fraud. They can't even lie well, and neither can you...

 

[Saigon]

Where's the increased temps.

Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.

 

[RollingThunder]

Where's the increased temps.

LOLOLOL....you are such a silly sorry-ass retard, walleyed.....and sooooo delusional......LOLOL.....you're a hoot.....

(Personally highlighted for the benefit of thick skulled denier cult retards)

2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record, Says NASA
ABC News
By Ned Potter
Jan 15, 2013
(excerpts)
The year 2012 was the ninth warmest globally since record keeping began in 1880, said climate scientists today from NASA. NOAA, crunching the numbers slightly differently, said 2012 was the tenth warmest year, and both agencies said a warming pattern has continued since the middle of the 20th century. NASA had already said last week that for the contiguous United States, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded. The hottest years on record for the planet, it said, were 2005 and 2010. “One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in a statement. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

NOAA and NASA scientists said the global temperature in 2012 was moderated by relatively cool temperatures in Alaska, Canada and parts of Asia, and there was also a La Nina — a giant patch of cool water that periodically replaces warmer water in the equatorial Pacific. But NASA also pointed out that 2012 was a year of extremes, with drought and unusual summer heat, for example, afflicting much of the U.S. “Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record,” NOAA said. “Only one year in the 20th century — 1998 — was warmer than 2012.”

How is it that when the globe was warming the meme was no more snow,

There is no "how" because no such "meme" was ever current in the climate science community. Climate science has never claimed that there would be no winters or an absence of snow in winter any time soon, even if one guy in Britain got a little over-enthusiastic a few years ago about the possibility of 'snow' vanishing soon. Do you even understand what the term 'meme' actually means, you senile old fool?

then when the globe started cooling the mantra became "oh yes we predicted that" which is an outright lie.

LOLOLOLOL.....how ironic.....you begin with an bald-faced "outright lie" about your imaginary "cooling", which is apparently only visible to insane brainwashed denier cultists and mad dogs.......and then you deceitfully label as "an outright lie" the documented and checkable fact that climate scientists were in fact predicting the probability of regional variations in the AGW driven climate changes, with some areas warming more, others less and some even cooling temporarily as the usual atmospheric wind patterns like the jet stream get moved around and ocean current patterns perhaps change. Here's a clue, little retard, the "globe" did not start "cooling", not in this millenium. Warming continues, of both the atmosphere and the oceans and that fact is very visible in the melting of the permafrost in the northern regions and the melting of the mountain glaciers all around the world, and the melting of the floating ice sheets in Antarctica.

Face it buckwheat, your religion has been exposed as a fraud. They can't even lie well, and neither can you...

Better watch it there, walleyed, you're starting to talk to yourself again. Then again, perhaps your sub-conscious mind can see how screwed up and brainwashed your normal semi-conscious mind is and it is trying to communicate with you this way. Maybe it wants to slap you silly and try to snap you out of this hypnotic trance that you're in.

BTW, old boy, too bad about your little astroturfed cult of reality denial going down the tubes like beer vomit at a frat party.

 

[polarbear]

Both "studies" you posted have been thoroughly ripped to shreds. Once again your climate "scientists" have been found to be deficient in their mathematical skills.

Climate "scientists" prefer to make statements like "warmer" and "more severe". They don`t like to quantify "more severe", "extreme" etc.
They only thing they do quantify is "average temperature anomaly" and the value they assign is 1 C ...(which is a statistics cheat and a fabrication anyway)
Let`s assume that`s true that it is 1 C and do the math what we get with the Clausius–Clapeyron equation for the water vapor pressure increase when the temperature increases from 20 C to 21 C.
at 20 C vP H2O = 17.51 mmHg and at 21 C it is 18.62 mmHg (Torr) saturated vapor pressure.
So let`s whip up a "perfect storm" and use the extreme maximum possible pressure drop if all the moisture of air saturated with a 100% vapor pressure condenses.
The Volume shrinks as the moisture condenses and that`s what`s causing a storm, sucking in air into the eye of a hurricane or tornadoes.
At 760 Torr,...standard pressure and 20 C the pressure & volume drops by 2.27 % and at a "temperature anomaly" of 21 C by 2.47 %.
So "extreme" and "more severe" pans out to be 0.2 % "more severe" for a 1 C "anomaly" than it would have been what climate "scientists" call "normal".
A +1 C "anomaly" does not make a storm "more extreme" or "more severe".
The thing that does determine how violent a storm will be, is the rate at which the moisture condenses per time.. and that is pegged to the rate of cooling. The faster moist air cools & condenses the more violent the event. So how exactly does CO2 which is said to slow the rate of cooling make storms "more severe"..???

 

[IanC]

every time I see the title of this thread I expect it to be about atmospheric physics but it is just the usual AGW BS about weather.

smaller temperature differentials leave less energy available to power wild storms. simply check out the weather during the Little Ice Age, when weather really was extreme.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

I share your frustation. Whatever the thread topic, every "discussion" is the same. It is frustrating.

 

[IanC]

Where's the increased temps.

Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.

SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position. global CO2 has gone up faster than expected while temps have been flat for over a decade. models did not expect this and many famous climate science luminaries have continued to backtrack on their predictions that warming could only stop for a decade, then 15 years, then 17 years, and now the head of the IPCC has said 30 or 40 years, just so they cannot be held accountable for their failures.

personally I like this graph because to me it looks like pre-1998 temps were somewhat stable with natural variation up and down, then it looks like something 'bumped' the thermostat at the 1998 mega El Nino, then post 1998 temps have been stable with natural up and downs since then.

what bumped the thermostat? I dont know, perhaps the reaction to Pinatubo. there are certainly known 'attractor' balance points in systems, climate or otherwise.

CO2 is not the control knob for climate or temperature.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

I share your frustation. Whatever the thread topic, every "discussion" is the same. It is frustrating.

I actually would like to see a (civil) discussion of atmospheric physics. it would point out the large uncertainties that are present in our understanding of what is going on. I vote for Miskolski (sp) simply because his theory is so beautiful and elegant that it should be true. hahahaha

 

[polarbear]

every time I see the title of this thread I expect it to be about atmospheric physics but it is just the usual AGW BS about weather.

smaller temperature differentials leave less energy available to power wild storms. simply check out the weather during the Little Ice Age, when weather really was extreme.

You just re-phrased what I`ve been saying. Simply stating "extreme" is a qualitative assertion which evades doing the math to show the quantity.
And when You do the math the vapor pressure curve for H2O applies to an air mass the same as it does to water in a psychrometric vapor pressure instrument. Dry air expands or shrinks only by 1/273 rd. per degree delta K and with a 100% water vapor saturation pressure it shrinks by the partial pressure component %.age of the total pressure carried by the water vapor.
"Extreme storms" are not caused while water evaporates, they happen when the evaporated water/ air mixture is rapidly cooled.
And to evaporate water quicker raising the "average temperature" by only 1 C does not have anywhere near the effect an increased airflow has.
You can try that out the next time You do Your laundry. Plug up the lint screen and observe how the safety thermostat cuts the power because the drum overheats,...but the clothes are just as wet as before.
The same laws are at play for wind speed and a large body of water or moist terrain. Just "warmer" by itself and only by 1C has no more than 0.2 % impact at standard pressure and temperature

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bay Area environmental group proposes hybrid levees for bay - ContraCostaTimes.com

At least real science is allowing for real efforts to mitgate the effect of climate change, no matter what the cause.

 

[Saigon]

SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position.

I disagree. I am told here everyday that "it is not warming, it has not warmed since 2010" or whatever the blogs say. The mantra is that temperatures are stable, and thus not rising.

In fact, temperatures are rising, but are rising in waves and plateaus and not in a smooth, even line.

 

[IanC]

SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position.

I disagree. I am told here everyday that "it is not warming, it has not warmed since 2010" or whatever the blogs say. The mantra is that temperatures are stable, and thus not rising.

In fact, temperatures are rising, but are rising in waves and plateaus and not in a smooth, even line.

then you are not reading the skeptics first hand but rather are listening to warmer's restatements that distort what is being said. of course both sides do that.

temps have been warming since the LIA. a gentle rise with almost sine-like natural variation, probably due to ocean currents, etc. CO2 theory basically demands that temps be in lock step with CO2 levels and that has proven to be false. I'll try to find the graph I am talking about

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

I'm going largely by what I see posted here by the geniuses that are Oddball, Frank, SSDD and the Wailing Wall. I don't look at what sceptics say anywhere else.

This simply does not look like a natural variation to me - or to anyone else, I suspect.

I do not see the natural increase since the LIA that you mention.

 

[IanC]

this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea

I find it hard to believe that anyone would not read both sides of the story. do you expect the pro AGW crowd to point out the flaws on their side? or vice versa?

 

[westwall]

Where's the increased temps.

Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.

Good! I've been trying to sink to your subterranean level for weeks now. Glad to see I have finally found your absurdly low level.

 

[IanC]

super skeptic McIntyre on Muller. First Thoughts on BEST « Climate Audit

does this match your mental image Saigon?