Global Warming Liars

[ReinyDays]

I'm afraid both values you've given are incorrect. It takes 2,260 joules to raise one gram of water from 0 to 100C. Water will evaporate at any temperature above 0C (like 0.001C) And it takes 4.186 joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree C. You will not melt iron. Or pass your next exam.

Are you sure? LOL!

He deleted that claim ... this is liquid water at 100ºC ... the latent heat of evaporation starts here converting water into gas at 100ºC ... we add 2,260 joules and temperature doesn't change ...

Same thing happens with melting ice except it's only 334 J/g ... and this is called the latent heat of fusion ... look it up if you don't believe me ...

I'm glad you managed to capture crick's mistake ... this demonstrates the enormous amounts of energy involved in these change-of-state processes ... something an atmospheric scientist wouldn't neglect in his calculations ... sad the IPCC doesn't allow for dissenting opinions ...

 

[otto105]

John Wiley and Sons Publishing isn't an organization? ... How about Cambridge University Press:

"The Stefan–Boltzmann law is an example of a negative feedback that stabilizes a planet's climate system. If the Earth received more sunlight it would result in a temporary disequilibrium (more energy in than out) and result in warming. However, because the Stefan–Boltzmann response mandates that this hotter planet emits more energy, eventually a new radiation balance can be reached and the temperature will be maintained at its new, higher value" -- Catling/Kasting 2017

Otto105 in a liar ... and so are you ... now you prove the carbon dioxide portion of AGW Theory is true ... and keep burning coal, you know it's not harming the environment ... you just lie about that ...

Idiots ...

The only thing that you can offer as a scientific organization is a publishing company?


Hilariously bad fail.

 

[Crick]

How are you evidencing a runaway greenhouse effect? ... and where does AGW Theory demand this runaway effect? ...

This is a strawman argument ... I've always agreed the Earth is warming and I've always agreed Man contributes to this effect ... where we disagree is whether catastrophic events will happen because of the warming ... I don't believe in hypercanes, that's your nightmare not mine ...

Otto105 posted a link advocating a runaway greenhouse effect ... evaporating water causes more water to evaporate ... hotter and hotter and hotter without end ... a positive feedback mechanism ... my point was any drop in temperature coupled with increasing CO2 is proof-positive there's no ongoing runaway greenhouse effect ...

You're right you're not a climate scientist, you haven't even taken a class in meteorology ... if you've taken physics, then you know the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics fully discredits otto105's position, or at least the position in the link he's defending ...

Maybe you haven't taken physics? ...

Maybe I've taken more physics than you have. I've never used the term "runaway greenhouse effect". But the greenhouse effect is quite real and the effect, acting on human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the warming we've witnessed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Since we have not managed to sufficiently reduce those emissions, warming will continue for some time to come. Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.

Your comment that any drop in temperature while CO2 is increasing is proof there's no runaway greenhouse effect is simply an ungainly pile of poorly defined terms. What magnitude of a drop and for what period of time while experiencing what increase in CO2? And are you suggesting that even in a runaway situation there is no 'noise' to the planet's temperature trends? Even in the worst imaginable runaway conditions there would be instances in which temperatures would move in the opposite direction. You look to have a cartoonish understanding of complex systems like the Earth's climate.

 

[Crick]

He deleted that claim ... this is liquid water at 100ºC ... the latent heat of evaporation starts here converting water into gas at 100ºC ... we add 2,260 joules and temperature doesn't change ...

Same thing happens with melting ice except it's only 334 J/g ... and this is called the latent heat of fusion ... look it up if you don't believe me ...

I'm glad you managed to capture crick's mistake ... this demonstrates the enormous amounts of energy involved in these change-of-state processes ... something an atmospheric scientist wouldn't neglect in his calculations ... sad the IPCC doesn't allow for dissenting opinions ...

I deleted that claim because I very quickly realized my error. Something I don't see happening a lot on your side of this argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe I've taken more physics than you have. I've never used the term "runaway greenhouse effect". But the greenhouse effect is quite real and the effect, acting on human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the warming we've witnessed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Since we have not managed to sufficiently reduce those emissions, warming will continue for some time to come. Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.

Your comment that any drop in temperature while CO2 is increasing is proof there's no runaway greenhouse effect is simply an ungainly pile of poorly defined terms. What magnitude of a drop and for what period of time while experiencing what increase in CO2? And are you suggesting that even in a runaway situation there is no 'noise' to the planet's temperature trends? Even in the worst imaginable runaway conditions there would be instances in which temperatures would move in the opposite direction. You look to have a cartoonish understanding of complex systems like the Earth's climate.

Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.

What are all the feedbacks that can be attributed to water vapor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I deleted that claim because I very quickly realized my error. Something I don't see happening a lot on your side of this argument.

Why didn't you correct and repost?

 

[Crick]

Why didn't you correct and repost?

The point I thought I should make was invalid. It wasn't a math error.

 

[Crick]

Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.

What are all the feedbacks that can be attributed to water vapor?

I don't understand your question. This has been spelled out repeatedly. Increased temperatures lead to increased evaporation and increased atmospheric saturation capacity (more water vapor in the air). Water vapor makes up a large portion of the climate sensitivity values for CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't understand your question. This has been spelled out repeatedly. Increased temperatures lead to increased evaporation and increased atmospheric saturation capacity (more water vapor in the air). Water vapor makes up a large portion of the climate sensitivity values for CO2.

Is there only one feedback from water vapor?

 

[Crick]

Is there only one feedback from water vapor?

It increases corrosion which decreases albedo, increasing the solar energy absorbed by metals exposed to the sun ; - )

It increases the density of the air and thus the air pressure at the Earth's surface.

It pushes the altitude at which IR backradiation finally escapes to space upward, increasing the heatable volume (planet can hold more energy), increasing the radiating area (cools faster) but decreasing the density of the air where such radiation takes place (cools more slowly).

If you're trying to make a point, just go ahead and make it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It increases corrosion which decreases albedo, increasing the solar energy absorbed by metals exposed to the sun ; - )

It increases the density of the air and thus the air pressure at the Earth's surface.

It pushes the altitude at which IR backradiation finally escapes to space upward, increasing the heatable volume (planet can hold more energy), increasing the radiating area (cools faster) but decreasing the density of the air where such radiation takes place (cools more slowly).

If you're trying to make a point, just go ahead and make it.

You forgot clouds?

 

[Crick]

You forgot clouds?

Tell us about clouds Todd.

 

[Crick]

Tell us about clouds Todd.

I found this at Thermodynamics of climate change between cloud cover, atmospheric temperature and humidity - Scientific Reports

Thermodynamics of climate change between cloud cover, atmospheric temperature and humidity​

• Víctor Mendoza,
• Marni Pazos,
• René Garduño &
• Blanca Mendoza

Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 21244 (2021) Cite this article

• 1798 Accesses
• 2 Citations
• 3 Altmetric
• Metricsdetails

Abstract​

On a global and annual average, we find a parameterization in which the cloud cover increase is proportional to the mid tropospheric temperature increase, with a negative proportionality factor. If the relative humidity is conserved throughout the troposphere, a 1 °C heating (cooling) of the mid troposphere, decreases (increases) the cloud cover by 1.5 percentage points (pp). But if the relative humidity is not conserved, then the cloud cover decreases (increases) by 7.6 pp. If the shortwave reflection effect of the cloud cover is dominant on a global scale, this parameterization leads to a predominant positive feedback: if the temperature increases like in the current climate change, the cloud cover decreases and more solar radiation reaches the surface increasing the temperature even more. The contribution of the present work consists in finding that the negative sign of the proportionality factor is due to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation; that is, to the magnitude of the derivative of the saturation vapor pressure at the typical standard surface temperature of 288 K. The negative sign of the factor is independent on the conservation or non-conservation of relative humidity in the troposphere under climate change.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell us about clouds Todd.

So you did forget them?
Could they be a negative feedback?

 

[Crick]

So you did forget them?
Could they be a negative feedback?

They could be but as we all here know, clouds are a very complicated question and all the king's horses and all the king's men and all the climate scientists on the planet haven't quite figured out what they do. Now, one thing THAT tells me is that they very likely do NOT have a large effect in either direction, else the data would have shown it by now. It certainly doesn't LOOK like the rate of warming is slowing and if warming is increasing cloud cover it should have been doing that since the turn of the last century at least.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They could be but as we all here know, clouds are a very complicated question and all the king's horses and all the king's men and all the climate scientists on the planet haven't quite figured out what they do. Now, one thing THAT tells me is that they very likely do NOT have a large effect in either direction, else the data would have shown it by now. It certainly doesn't LOOK like the rate of warming is slowing and if warming is increasing cloud cover it should have been doing that since the turn of the last century at least.

They could be but as we all here know,

So we can't say that the only feedbacks are positive?

 

[Crick]

Was there something I said there that you're having trouble understanding? There is still no firm understanding of the response of clouds to warming and the response of warming to clouds... at least that I know of.

 

[Crick]

Was there something I said there that you're having trouble understanding? There is still no firm understanding of the response of clouds to warming and the response of warming to clouds... at least that I know of.

The AR6 SPM and Technical Summary are both now available for download. I'm pulling down the latter and will see what it might have to say about clouds*.

* Besides: "they're puffy and white and sometimes they look like bunnies and sometimes they look like dragons"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Was there something I said there that you're having trouble understanding? There is still no firm understanding of the response of clouds to warming and the response of warming to clouds... at least that I know of.

Were you lying in post #223, or are you lying now?

 

[Crick]

The AR6 SPM and Technical Summary are both now available for download. I'm pulling down the latter and will see what it might have to say about clouds*.

* Besides: "they're puffy and white and sometimes they look like bunnies and sometimes they look like dragons"

From Pg 41: Magnitude of climate system response: In this Report, it has been possible to reduce the long-standing uncertainty ranges for metrics that quantify the response of the climate system to radiative forcing, such as the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the transient climate response (TCR), due to substantial advances (e.g., a 50% reduction in the uncertainty range of cloud feedbacks) and improved integration of multiple lines of evidence, including paleoclimate information.

Pg 42: Effects of short-lived climate forcers on global warming: The AR5 assessed the radiative forcing for emitted compounds. The AR6 has extended this by assessing the emissions-based ERFs also accounting for aerosol–cloud interactions. The best estimates of ERF attributed to sulphur dioxide (SO2) and CH4 emissions are substantially greater than in AR5, while that of black carbon is substantially reduced. The magnitude of uncertainty in the ERF due to black carbon emissions has also been reduced relative to AR5. (Section TS.3.1)

Pg 49: Some CMIP6 models demonstrate an improvement in how clouds are represented. CMIP5 models commonly displayed a negative shortwave cloud radiative effect that was too weak in the present climate. These errors have been reduced, especially over the Southern Ocean, due to a more realistic simulation of supercooled liquid droplets with sufficient numbers and an associated increase in the cloud optical depth. Because a negative cloud optical depth feedback in response to surface warming results from ‘brightening’ of clouds via active phase change from ice to liquid cloud particles (increasing their shortwave cloud radiative effect), the extratropical cloud shortwave feedback in CMIP6 models tends to be less negative, leading to a better agreement with observational estimates (medium confidence). CMIP6 models generally represent more processes that drive aerosol–cloud interactions than the previous generation of climate models, but there is only medium confidence that those enhancements improve their fitness-for-purpose of simulating radiative forcing of aerosol–cloud interactions. {6.4, 7.4.2, FAQ 7.2}

Pg 49: Two important quantities used to estimate how the climate system responds to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR16). The CMIP6 ensemble has broader ranges of ECS and TCR values than CMIP5 (see Section TS.3.2 for the assessed range). These higher sensitivity values can, in some models, be traced to changes in extratropical cloud feedbacks (medium confidence). To combine evidence from CMIP6 models and independent assessments of ECS and TCR, various emulators are used throughout the report. Emulators are a broad class of simple climate models or statistical methods that reproduce the behaviour of complex ESMs to represent key characteristics of the climate system, such as global surface temperature and sea level projections. The main application of emulators in AR6 is to extrapolate insights from ESMs and observational constraints to produce projections from a larger set of emissions scenarios, which is achieved due to their computational efficiency. These emulated projections are also used for scenario classification in WGIII. {Box 4.1, 4.3.4, 7.4.2, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 7.1, FAQ 7.2}

That's enough for this purpose. Certainly clouds are addressed in AR6 and mainstream science's knowledge of how clouds figure into all this is certainly improving. One thing I always find when I go to the the assessment reports is how far beyond the typical USMB conversation are the work of actual scientists. These excerpts are from introductory texts in a technical summary. This is about the simplest level of material you'll find in The Physical Science Basis outside the summary for policymakers but we both know that most posters here can't follow one word in ten from those documents. Why do you listen to those people Todd?