Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

[antagon]

i'd like to know more about the gulf in '05. i maintain that the effectiveness of the atmosphere to warm the oceans is inverse to the real process whereby the oceans warm the atmosphere. with the case of mars or the moon, it is because there is no abundant standing water on these planets that they have no atmosphere. that is the crucial component missing.

i've expressed how substantial heat transfer is unlikely from the atmosphere to the sea given atmospheric temps and the time allowed. this is because of the volumetric heat capacity deficit which the atmosphere brings to the interaction - the sensible heating issue. i also submit that the sea surface is warmer on average than the atmosphere, and the second law of thermodynamics indicates the one-way disposition of heat transfer. one need only have a pool to appreciate the heat absorption and retention character of water to air once the sun has set. the specific attribution of warming to CO2 is also implausible. CO2 is a scarcely significant GhG, where H2O vastly dominates it for the volume, efficiency and methodology (convection) by which it effects warming of the atmosphere. all of this points to the sea warming the atmosphere and not the other way around.

how does it work, this proposal that the atmosphere is the vector for global warming? how does CO2 play a lead role? can this be argued through an examination of the concerns which i've raised about atmospheric or CO2 'forcing'? what i have seen in the climate science community dances around these issues or ignores them entirely.

I would dismiss CO2 as the cause of el nino summarily for the reasons you stated.

I would not however dismiss CO2 as a driver of global warming.

this presents some type of contradiction. the el nino/warm bipolar effect domination phenomenon is the cause of global warming. how can and why would another marginal contributor be implicated alongside it? you've just stated that CO2 cannot be associated with the major causation. how is it significantly associable with the outcome?

if what i've stated here with certainty is a foregone conclusion, what explains the direct timeline correlation between the dominance of warm bipolars and warm sea temps, warm sea temps and warmer atmosphere?

 

[loosecannon]

i'd like to know more about the gulf in '05.

All I can tell you is that during the days preceding Katrina making landfall I was completely taken by the storm. The vacuum pressure at it's eye was phenomenally low (26.64 inHg). I really got into it, estimating that a 30 foot storm surge was possible if the storm retained it's vacuum intensity.

What that means is a regional atmospheric pressure so low as to actually raise the sea level across the whole effected region 30 feet above ordinary sea level. That blew my mind.

So I was trapped in a quest for info about that storm, and Stripey1 the weather cat, an occasional poster on this board, posted a link that had actual data for surface temps across the gulf. The surface temps were 5 degrees plus above normal. I expect it was a NOAA link, but I wouldn't expect to find it without a hint about where it is.

The cause was the drought and heat wave in the upper midwest. Record low rainfall coupled with record high heat. That resulted in a Mississippi flow that was low in volume but way above normal in temp. Apparently that offshore flow stayed at the surface across a wide range of the gulf, stoking conditions ideal for a mega storm, or perfect storm.

 

[loosecannon]

i'd like to know more about the gulf in '05. i maintain that the effectiveness of the atmosphere to warm the oceans is inverse to the real process whereby the oceans warm the atmosphere. with the case of mars or the moon, it is because there is no abundant standing water on these planets that they have no atmosphere. that is the crucial component missing.

i've expressed how substantial heat transfer is unlikely from the atmosphere to the sea given atmospheric temps and the time allowed. this is because of the volumetric heat capacity deficit which the atmosphere brings to the interaction - the sensible heating issue. i also submit that the sea surface is warmer on average than the atmosphere, and the second law of thermodynamics indicates the one-way disposition of heat transfer. one need only have a pool to appreciate the heat absorption and retention character of water to air once the sun has set. the specific attribution of warming to CO2 is also implausible. CO2 is a scarcely significant GhG, where H2O vastly dominates it for the volume, efficiency and methodology (convection) by which it effects warming of the atmosphere. all of this points to the sea warming the atmosphere and not the other way around.

how does it work, this proposal that the atmosphere is the vector for global warming? how does CO2 play a lead role? can this be argued through an examination of the concerns which i've raised about atmospheric or CO2 'forcing'? what i have seen in the climate science community dances around these issues or ignores them entirely.

I would dismiss CO2 as the cause of el nino summarily for the reasons you stated.

I would not however dismiss CO2 as a driver of global warming.

this presents some type of contradiction. the el nino/warm bipolar effect domination phenomenon is the cause of global warming. how can and why would another marginal contributor be implicated alongside it? you've just stated that CO2 cannot be associated with the major causation. how is it significantly associable with the outcome?

if what i've stated here with certainty is a foregone conclusion, what explains the direct timeline correlation between the dominance of warm bipolars and warm sea temps, warm sea temps and warmer atmosphere?

While CO2 may be impotent to warm the oceans in an afternoon it has a multiplying effect in that as CO2 may gradually heat the atmosphere as it does it also forces more water vapor to evaporate and remain suspended which causes an even stronger GHG effect.

Remember that in the presence of available water humidity is a direct proportionate function of temperature.

Since the provable and most extreme climate change examples have terms ranging in tens of thousands of years you can not credibly denounce the capacity of CO2 multiplied by increasing water vapor from driving long term warming trends which of no consequence to the reaction happen to also warm the oceans. Oceans which likely play no driving role whatsoever in real observable long term climate change like interglacial cycles.

 

[antagon]

i'd like to know more about the gulf in '05.

All I can tell you is that during the days preceding Katrina making landfall I was completely taken by the storm. The vacuum pressure at it's eye was phenomenally low (26.64 inHg). I really got into it, estimating that a 30 foot storm surge was possible if the storm retained it's vacuum intensity.

What that means is a regional atmospheric pressure so low as to actually raise the sea level across the whole effected region 30 feet above ordinary sea level. That blew my mind.

So I was trapped in a quest for info about that storm, and Stripey1 the weather cat, an occasional poster on this board, posted a link that had actual data for surface temps across the gulf. The surface temps were 5 degrees plus above normal. I expect it was a NOAA link, but I wouldn't expect to find it without a hint about where it is.

The cause was the drought and heat wave in the upper midwest. Record low rainfall coupled with record high heat. That resulted in a Mississippi flow that was low in volume but way above normal in temp. Apparently that offshore flow stayed at the surface across a wide range of the gulf, stoking conditions ideal for a mega storm, or perfect storm.

can a heatwave be considered atmospheric warming? the sun is warming the surface and inland water under these conditions. the atmosphere, the air, is not a warming the surface; the opposite takes place under these conditions.

 

[antagon]

While CO2 may be impotent to warm the oceans in an afternoon it has a multiplying effect in that as CO2 may gradually heat the atmosphere as it does it also forces more water vapor to evaporate and remain suspended which causes an even stronger GHG effect.

this forcing argument represents a logical leap. it is agreed that CO2 contributes to GH effect, but it cannot be established that GH effect drives the evaporation of water in any significant way. this is because most standing water sources are warmer at their surface than atmospheric temps on a 24hr average. also, the atmosphere lacks the leverage to effect significant warming of water because of the its deficit of volumetric heat capacity. within these considerations, CO2 is one of the least influential substances.

Remember that in the presence of available water humidity is a direct proportionate function of temperature.

this temperature is contributed by the sun, then transferred to the atmosphere by surface temps. over water the transfer is highest and is compounded by water vapor vapor itself. the sun's direct influence on heat cannot be attributed to the atmosphere. i think that's what is going on with this argument. the forcing occurs in the opposite manner than is proposed. the media which most effectively absorb heat: sea and land are the forces which drive warmth into the atmosphere. the sea in particular (and other sources of H2O) contribute the vast majority of GH effect (90-some percent) through enthalpy.

Since the provable and most extreme climate change examples have terms ranging in tens of thousands of years you can not credibly denounce the capacity of CO2 multiplied by increasing water vapor from driving long term warming trends which of no consequence to the reaction happen to also warm the oceans. Oceans which likely play no driving role whatsoever in real observable long term climate change like interglacial cycles.

i contend that over a long term or any study of the earth's overall climate, sea temps will be the only ones which correlate to the atmospheric temps. any and every time. this is not the case with CO2. i dont buy atmosphere-based forcing, because sea temps are what is responsible for evaporation, and these are scarcely influenced by air temperature. they are influenced by the sun, not atmospheric temps. carrying this stored energy into an interaction with cold air, warmer seas beget fog which warms the air. same thing with a field of grass or a rainforest which cover the ground with water-bearing (hence efficiently heat absorbing) life.

an anthropogenic attribution to irrigation, power production from heating water, and water provision through reservoirs is more plausible than the idea that CO2's painfully minor insulatory function has anything to do with global warming. the levels of CO2 change are hardly significant at all relative to millions of years.

 

[loosecannon]

can a heatwave be considered atmospheric warming? the sun is warming the surface and inland water under these conditions. the atmosphere, the air, is not a warming the surface; the opposite takes place under these conditions.

can the atmosphere and water be considered two separate systems in a weather model?

I have no way of knowing how much of the atmospheric temp at the surface is a function of the sun heating the air or the surface. Observation supports that most of the heating is probably surface warming, but there is water in the air as well. Water with magical properties to absorb heat, I might add!

On the other hand when the sun sets here the temps can drop 20 degrees in 5 minutes. Maybe the warm air just rises and floats away.

 

[loosecannon]

While CO2 may be impotent to warm the oceans in an afternoon it has a multiplying effect in that as CO2 may gradually heat the atmosphere as it does it also forces more water vapor to evaporate and remain suspended which causes an even stronger GHG effect.

this forcing argument represents a logical leap. it is agreed that CO2 contributes to GH effect, but it cannot be established that GH effect drives the evaporation of water in any significant way. this is because most standing water sources are warmer at their surface than atmospheric temps on a 24hr average. also, the atmosphere lacks the leverage to effect significant warming of water because of the its deficit of volumetric heat capacity. within these considerations, CO2 is one of the least influential substances.

It doesn't matter, Antagon. The atmosphere will absorb whatever humidity it's temp allows it to absorb, air is always fully saturated according to it's temp if water is available to allow that to happen.

See vapor pressure: Vapor pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and it doesn't matter how influential CO2 or any other GHG in this situation. Every increase in atmospheric temps will result in an increase in RH provided that water is available.

And this results in a feedback loop that can either be self reinforcing, or self destructing depending on whether the air is warming or cooling.

Over a long period of time either warming or cooling can accumulate.

 

[loosecannon]

i contend that over a long term or any study of the earth's overall climate, sea temps will be the only ones which correlate to the atmospheric temps. any and every time. this is not the case with CO2. i dont buy atmosphere-based forcing, because sea temps are what is responsible for evaporation, and these are scarcely influenced by air temperature. they are influenced by the sun, not atmospheric temps. carrying this stored energy into an interaction with cold air, warmer seas beget fog which warms the air. same thing with a field of grass or a rainforest which cover the ground with water-bearing (hence efficiently heat absorbing) life.

an anthropogenic attribution to irrigation, power production from heating water, and water provision through reservoirs is more plausible than the idea that CO2's painfully minor insulatory function has anything to do with global warming. the levels of CO2 change are hardly significant at all relative to millions of years.

OK, you contend that, but you are dismissing the insulative capacity of the atmosphere. The land and sea could attain nearly any temp and would still cool toward -300 degrees overnight if we didn't have an atmosphere to retain that heat.

The Moon's axial tilt is only 1.54°, much less than the 23.44° of the Earth. Because of this, the Moon's solar illumination varies much less with season, and topographical details play a crucial role in seasonal effects.[76] From images taken by Clementine in 1994, it appears that four mountainous regions on the rim of Peary crater at the Moon's north pole remain illuminated for the entire lunar day, creating peaks of eternal light. No such regions exist at the south pole. Similarly, there are places that remain in permanent shadow at the bottoms of many polar craters,[56] and these dark craters are extremely cold: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured the lowest summer temperatures in craters at the southern pole at 35 K (−238 °C),[77] and just 26 K close to the winter solstice in north polar Hermite Crater. This is the coldest temperature in the Solar System ever measured by a spacecraft, colder even than the surface of Pluto.

Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Along with equatorial surface temperatures of 390 K by day and 100 K by night, the ideal gas law yields the pressures given in the infobox (rounded to the nearest order of magnitude; 10−7 Pa by day and 10−10 Pa by night.

that is a 493 degree (F) average vascilation between daytime high temps and night time low temps.

 

[antagon]

can a heatwave be considered atmospheric warming? the sun is warming the surface and inland water under these conditions. the atmosphere, the air, is not a warming the surface; the opposite takes place under these conditions.

can the atmosphere and water be considered two separate systems in a weather model?

they are all interrelated, however, we are looking within the weather model trying to ascertain a cause for anomalous warming. we're examining its several components.

I have no way of knowing how much of the atmospheric temp at the surface is a function of the sun heating the air or the surface. Observation supports that most of the heating is probably surface warming, but there is water in the air as well. Water with magical properties to absorb heat, I might add!

there are ways of knowing the qualities of the substances which are involved in interacting with the sun's energy. if you aren't familiar with these properties, the proposal that CO2 is playing an implausible role in warming might seem realistic. water's properties might seem like magic.

On the other hand when the sun sets here the temps can drop 20 degrees in 5 minutes. Maybe the warm air just rises and floats away.

or you could accept that the volumetric heat capacity of air is very low.

 

[antagon]

While CO2 may be impotent to warm the oceans in an afternoon it has a multiplying effect in that as CO2 may gradually heat the atmosphere as it does it also forces more water vapor to evaporate and remain suspended which causes an even stronger GHG effect.

this forcing argument represents a logical leap. it is agreed that CO2 contributes to GH effect, but it cannot be established that GH effect drives the evaporation of water in any significant way. this is because most standing water sources are warmer at their surface than atmospheric temps on a 24hr average. also, the atmosphere lacks the leverage to effect significant warming of water because of the its deficit of volumetric heat capacity. within these considerations, CO2 is one of the least influential substances.

It doesn't matter, Antagon. The atmosphere will absorb whatever humidity it's temp allows it to absorb, air is always fully saturated according to it's temp if water is available to allow that to happen.

negative. air does not 'absorb humidity' based on its temperature. water vapor remains suspended in air because of its critical temperature @ a given pressure, below which it will condense to fog, rain, etc. this is a huge difference. you propose a misunderstanding of the latent heating, the only way water is assumed into the atmosphere, while what ive proposed indicates the reality that evaporation is a function of heat exchange with water. this heat exchange is from solar radiation by and large. this is not a kiln-concept whereby air has been superheated and can be indicated to draw hydration out of clay, this is planet earth with average temps in the 60s and 70s, but with a sun putting down 1.3 kilojoules average per square meter.

your 'feedback loop' must work with a primary vector instigating a secondary response. standing water is the primary vector. its temperature feeds back in to air for the reasons and through the methods which i've beat to death. in its vapor phase, it constitutes the component of the atmosphere which retains virtually all of the heat which the atmosphere retains.

 

[antagon]

i contend that over a long term or any study of the earth's overall climate, sea temps will be the only ones which correlate to the atmospheric temps. any and every time. this is not the case with CO2. i dont buy atmosphere-based forcing, because sea temps are what is responsible for evaporation, and these are scarcely influenced by air temperature. they are influenced by the sun, not atmospheric temps. carrying this stored energy into an interaction with cold air, warmer seas beget fog which warms the air. same thing with a field of grass or a rainforest which cover the ground with water-bearing (hence efficiently heat absorbing) life.

an anthropogenic attribution to irrigation, power production from heating water, and water provision through reservoirs is more plausible than the idea that CO2's painfully minor insulatory function has anything to do with global warming. the levels of CO2 change are hardly significant at all relative to millions of years.

OK, you contend that, but you are dismissing the insulative capacity of the atmosphere. The land and sea could attain nearly any temp and would still cool toward -300 degrees overnight if we didn't have an atmosphere to retain that heat.

The Moon's axial tilt is only 1.54°, much less than the 23.44° of the Earth. Because of this, the Moon's solar illumination varies much less with season, and topographical details play a crucial role in seasonal effects.[76] From images taken by Clementine in 1994, it appears that four mountainous regions on the rim of Peary crater at the Moon's north pole remain illuminated for the entire lunar day, creating peaks of eternal light. No such regions exist at the south pole. Similarly, there are places that remain in permanent shadow at the bottoms of many polar craters,[56] and these dark craters are extremely cold: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured the lowest summer temperatures in craters at the southern pole at 35 K (−238 °C),[77] and just 26 K close to the winter solstice in north polar Hermite Crater. This is the coldest temperature in the Solar System ever measured by a spacecraft, colder even than the surface of Pluto.

Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Along with equatorial surface temperatures of 390 K by day and 100 K by night, the ideal gas law yields the pressures given in the infobox (rounded to the nearest order of magnitude; 10−7 Pa by day and 10−10 Pa by night.

that is a 493 degree (F) average vascilation between daytime high temps and night time low temps.

the last time you mentioned your moon hypothesis, i contended that it had no water standing on its surface. this is the reason why it has these temp swings and no/low atmosphere or Gh effect. nothing's changed.

 

[loosecannon]

the last time you mentioned your moon hypothesis, i contended that it had no water standing on its surface. this is the reason why it has these temp swings and no/low atmosphere or Gh effect. nothing's changed.

It is the atmosphere, not the damned water. Comets are comprised mostly of water, that is frozen solid because they lack atmosphere.

There is water on Mars, but no atmosphere to speak of: Liquid Water Found on Mars, But It's Still a Hard Road for Life -- Kerr 330 (6004): 571 -- Science

What do you think the average daily temp fluxuation is on the red planet?

Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of about -87 °C during the polar winters to highs of up to -5 °C in summers.[43] The wide range in temperatures is due to the thin atmosphere which cannot store much solar heat, the low atmospheric pressure, and the low thermal inertia of Martian soil.[102] The planet is also 1.52 times as far from the sun as Earth, resulting in just 43 percent of the amount of sunlight.

Mars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[antagon]

fail. it is the water. comets are frozen because they dont closely orbit the sun.

our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen. these provide no or negligible greenhouse effect. water is maybe 2% of the total atmosphere by volume. it is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect. a bunch of air whipping around the planet wont insulate it without water.

there's no water on mars either.

 

[loosecannon]

negative. air does not 'absorb humidity' based on its temperature. water vapor remains suspended in air because of its critical temperature @ a given pressure, below which it will condense to fog, rain, etc.

Those two ideas are identical except that you included pressure, correctly but irrelevantly as the atmopshere at the surface has nearly the same pressure.

your 'feedback loop' must work with a primary vector instigating a secondary response.

Imagine two scenarios identical in every way except one variable: two planets nearly identical to Earth except one has an atmosphere with 380 ppm CO2 while the other has an atmosphere with 381 ppm CO2.

The input conditions remain unchanged for 60,000 years.

At the end of 60,000 years planet A remains unchanged climactically.

But at the end of 60,000 years the second planet has average surface temps 11 degrees warmer, ocean surface temps 11 degrees warmer and an atmosphere with a CO2 concentration of 1300 ppm Co2 and significantly more water vapor circulating thru it's atmosphere.

It makes no difference what the primary driver is. EVERY driver plays a cumulative role in events that have myriad drivers.

My central heater is the primary heat source in my house, but my house would get pretty damned cold floating thru space.

In the case of CO2 it increases the insulative effect of the atmosphere (the definition of a GHG) so when atmospheric CO2 increases it causes an increase in the water vapor content of the Earth, thus increasing the weight of the atmosphere and the pressure at the surface.

And as temps increase CO2 increasingly dissolves out of sea water adding a second reinforcing feedback loop to the warming cycle.

 

[loosecannon]

fail. it is the water. comets are frozen because they dont closely orbit the sun.

our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen. these provide no or negligible greenhouse effect. water is maybe 2% of the total atmosphere by volume. it is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect. a bunch of air whipping around the planet wont insulate it without water.

there's no water on mars either.

You are hopeless.

 

[loosecannon]

fwiw, air is a far better insulator than water. Dry air is better than wet air. Water is a horrible insulator, which is why it is so effective as a heat exchanging material.

You can prove this by boiling an egg for 1 minute or baking an egg in a 212 degree stove for one minute.

If you won't bother to waste one egg to see for yourself then I can't help you.

 

[loosecannon]

OK I thought of one more thing that might help:

Water is so anxious to make a state change to a gas that it will evaporate at temps far below it's boiling point, that's where vapor pressure comes in.

No input is required to make water evaporate at temps far below it's boiling point except dry air that is 1 degree warmer than the water. Water will evaporate one molecule at a time and will cool the parent water as it does and will not warm the air.

Water will even do this at temps below freezing, it is called sublimation. And it happens to ice cubes in your freezer every day. Ice converts directly to vapor from ice even in the dark dry space that is your freezer.

Ice btw is a much better insulator than water.

 

[antagon]

fwiw, air is a far better insulator than water. Dry air is better than wet air. Water is a horrible insulator, which is why it is so effective as a heat exchanging material.

You can prove this by boiling an egg for 1 minute or baking an egg in a 212 degree stove for one minute.

If you won't bother to waste one egg to see for yourself then I can't help you.

you are hopeless! you have to understand the implications of sensible heating in order to understand the role of water in heat transfer relative to nearly everything else. you have to master this idea. if each degree of a pound of water represents more energy than a pound of nearly any other substance, a liter of water will release more energy when effecting thermal equillibrium than any other substance. a substance which has a lower sensible heat capacity will then raise its temperature with less energy than the water. the water's temperature will impart greater energy on the other substance, even though its temperature has not dramatically changed. the other substance, be it air, an egg or the hand you used earlier, will experience this greater energy as heat.

it is better at this than air itself. that's why the oven egg/hand doesnt heat as well.

this effect is invertible, water is a tremendous insulator for that reason. it will absorb more heat with less change in temperature than almost any other substance. what you believe is the opposite. where do you get that stuff?

 

[loosecannon]

you are hopeless! you have to understand the implications of sensible heating in order to understand the role of water in heat transfer relative to nearly everything else.

I read your entire link about sensible heat and it not only taught me nothing, it in no way supported some of the bizarre assumptions you are making, Antagon.

I followed one link contained within it here Heat capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and it contained tons of information that flatly refute your reasoning while supporting a half dozen of the examples and experiments I have posted.

I provided you with links that indeed say that there IS water on Mars and you don't read them.

I provide you with links that assert directly that it IS in fact the atmosphere that causes the earth to retain heat and you just don't listen.

I am getting the impression that you know better and are just jerking my chain. Wadevah

 

[loosecannon]

all of the following are better insulators than water, including air which is 24 times more effective as an insulator:

Silica Aerogel 0.004 - 0.04
Air 0.025
Wood 0.04 - 0.4
Hollow Fill Fibre Insulation Polartherm 0.042
Alcohols and oils 0.1 - 0.21
Polypropylene 0.25 [6]
Mineral oil 0.138
Rubber 0.16
LPG 0.23 - 0.26
Cement, Portland 0.29
Epoxy (silica-filled) 0.30
Epoxy (unfilled) 0.59

Thermal conductivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cement is a better insulator than water, in fact more than twice as efficient and cement absolutely SUCKS as an insulator.