How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[Crick]

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

Cause, I don't see your negative feedback at work in these data:
View attachment 486934

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Excuse me while I wipe the tears off my cheeks ...

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

There's a very good reason why weather stations report relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... as cloud formation depends strictly on relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... another thing to keep in mind is that the equilibrium state of the atmosphere is to be fully saturated with water vapor, RH = 100% ... most of us never see this living on land, but out over the ocean any dry air mass near the surface with suck up water as fast as the air can ... increasing surface temperatures increases evaporation ...

Now, let me introduce you to something we call the Law of Conservation of Mass ... water can be neither created nor destroyed under normal environmental conditions ... so all the water evaporated into the atmosphere will eventual condense and form cloud droplets ... the more water evaporated, the more clouds will form ... Meteorology 201 ...

The IPCC and Alarmists completely ignore this basic fact of nature ... first because including the convective transfer of energy ruins any and all predictions of catastrophe ... as this convective transfer of energy occurs without a change in temperature ... the energy required to evaporate one gram of water would raise the temperature of one gram of dry air by 2,100ºC ... this seriously reduced the radiative transfer and the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures ... second, more clouds increases albedo, less solar energy reaching the surface and being absorbed ... less energy being re-emitted as IR to be interfered with by CO2 ...

IPCC has to ignore this, or their reason to exist would cease ... no more pay to write reports 7 times longer than the Holy Bible ...

I may not be smarter than a climatologist, but I sure as am smarter than you ... and all I did was take a class ... maybe something you should look into ...

Oh, aren't you the smart one; smart enough, one might think, to explain why we have not seen any increase in cloud cover over the last century or so.

PS: let's take a fixed parcel of air containing a fixed amount of water vapor. What happens to its relative humidity as we raise its temperature?

PPS: if equilibrium condition is 100% RH, why is the vapor pressure of water temperature dependent?

A good discussion of this issue may be found at 47. Relative humidity over the oceans – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

 

[ding]

How smart do you have to be to know that it's not a good idea to want the planet to be colder when it's in the middle of an ice age?

 

[ding]

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

Cause, I don't see your negative feedback at work in these data:
View attachment 486934

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Excuse me while I wipe the tears off my cheeks ...

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

There's a very good reason why weather stations report relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... as cloud formation depends strictly on relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... another thing to keep in mind is that the equilibrium state of the atmosphere is to be fully saturated with water vapor, RH = 100% ... most of us never see this living on land, but out over the ocean any dry air mass near the surface with suck up water as fast as the air can ... increasing surface temperatures increases evaporation ...

Now, let me introduce you to something we call the Law of Conservation of Mass ... water can be neither created nor destroyed under normal environmental conditions ... so all the water evaporated into the atmosphere will eventual condense and form cloud droplets ... the more water evaporated, the more clouds will form ... Meteorology 201 ...

The IPCC and Alarmists completely ignore this basic fact of nature ... first because including the convective transfer of energy ruins any and all predictions of catastrophe ... as this convective transfer of energy occurs without a change in temperature ... the energy required to evaporate one gram of water would raise the temperature of one gram of dry air by 2,100ºC ... this seriously reduced the radiative transfer and the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures ... second, more clouds increases albedo, less solar energy reaching the surface and being absorbed ... less energy being re-emitted as IR to be interfered with by CO2 ...

IPCC has to ignore this, or their reason to exist would cease ... no more pay to write reports 7 times longer than the Holy Bible ...

I may not be smarter than a climatologist, but I sure as am smarter than you ... and all I did was take a class ... maybe something you should look into ...

I doubt they have good history matches or models of water vapor and clouds but clouds are very effective at trapping and blocking energy. Seems to me that water vapor/clouds should act as a self compensating feature in our climate. Which is why I have problems with them adding on positive feedbacks.

 

[ding]

Oh, aren't you the smart one; smart enough, one might think, to explain why we have not seen any increase in cloud cover over the last century or so.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think anyone knows what planetary cloud cover has done over the past 100 years.

 

[mamooth]

I don't see your runaway positive feedback in these data.

Why would you? After all, you're the only one claiming such a thing could happen.

Your delusions are not our problem.

 

[mamooth]

How smart do you have to be to know that it's not a good idea to want the planet to be colder when it's in the middle of an ice age?

And here he is again, telling us to run the furnace full blast in July, because winter will eventually come.

A lot of deniers are just extremely stupid human beings.

 

[ding]

How smart do you have to be to know that it's not a good idea to want the planet to be colder when it's in the middle of an ice age?

And here he is again, telling us to run the furnace full blast in July, because winter will eventually come.

A lot of deniers are just extremely stupid human beings.

In case you hadn't noticed... whether I make a post here or not atmospheric CO2 will most likely continue increasing. If we continue at our current trend - which is accelerating at approximately 1 billion tons per year per year - by the year 2100 atmospheric CO2 will be approximately 580 ppm.

So please share with me the dire consequences that you believe will occur at an atmospheric concentration of 580 ppm.

I believe in another post you referred to it as a blast furnace.

 

[mamooth]

So please share with me the dire consequences that you believe will occur at an atmospheric concentration of 580 ppm.

That's about 3C of warming, which is ... not good. Significantly decreased food production, many more heat wave deaths, a 2 meter sea level rise, and massive numbers of climate refugees. It's not an existential threat to humanity, but it's still very harmful.

I believe in another post you referred to it as a blast furnace.

Do investigate the concept of "an analogy".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't see your runaway positive feedback in these data.

Why would you? After all, you're the only one claiming such a thing could happen.

Your delusions are not our problem.

After all, you're the only one claiming such a thing could happen.

Warmers never claim that? Thank goodness.

Your delusions are not our problem.

He said, to himself.

 

[ding]

So please share with me the dire consequences that you believe will occur at an atmospheric concentration of 580 ppm.

That's about 3C of warming, which is ... not good. Significantly decreased food production, many more heat wave deaths, a 2 meter sea level rise, and massive numbers of climate refugees. It's not an existential threat to humanity, but it's still very harmful.

I believe in another post you referred to it as a blast furnace.

Do investigate the concept of "an analogy".

That's some seriously flawed math. Do you even radiative forcing?

More like 1.7C and I can show my math. Can you?

 

[ding]

So please share with me the dire consequences that you believe will occur at an atmospheric concentration of 580 ppm.

That's about 3C of warming, which is ... not good. Significantly decreased food production, many more heat wave deaths, a 2 meter sea level rise, and massive numbers of climate refugees. It's not an existential threat to humanity, but it's still very harmful.

I believe in another post you referred to it as a blast furnace.

Do investigate the concept of "an analogy".

I never realized a blast furnace operated on a 3C differential. Maybe you should explore the concept of hyperbole. Or drama queen.

 

[ding]

FWIW 1.7C would place us just below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles.

 

[mamooth]

I never realized a blast furnace operated on a 3C differential. Maybe you should explore the concept of hyperbole. Or drama queen.

You're not that stupid. You're just trolling and lying now, so fuck off.

 

[ding]

I never realized a blast furnace operated on a 3C differential. Maybe you should explore the concept of hyperbole. Or drama queen.

You're not that stupid. You're just trolling and lying now, so fuck off.

I am certainly not stupid enough to argue 3C is a blast furnace, that's for sure.

Still waiting for you to show your math. Would you like to see my math for a 1.7C increase?

 

[ClaireH]

I never realized a blast furnace operated on a 3C differential. Maybe you should explore the concept of hyperbole. Or drama queen.

You're not that stupid. You're just trolling and lying now, so fuck off.

I am certainly not stupid enough to argue 3C is a blast furnace, that's for sure.

Still waiting for you to show your math. Would you like to see my math for a 1.7C increase?

<Makes a polite observation that it appears that Mamooth has stepped away to check a few things....but by all means, please carry on as I've learned quite a lot over the last 30 minutes defining blast furnace relative to operating on 3C differential and the like...still relatively clueless but I like to consider all steps towards learning a good thing. The ball is sitting motionless in Mamooth's corner with select board readers awaiting his calculations

This is more on my level of understanding...not that anyone asked ha... visual cues depicting the concepts...the music is weak but easily elminated. Agreeing on the basics is a good way to start, even with higher level thinking and concepts, and even for those well versed on the subject matter and could teach advanced geothermal dynamics.

 

[Crick]

The relative humidity of air above water is 100% - for a boundary layer a few molecules thick and is simply the result of the interaction of evaporation and diffusion. The standard elevation for atmospheric calculations of "surface conditions" is two meters. At that elevation, RH above the oceans is roughly 80%. A logarithmic gradient exists between the two elevations.

 

[ReinyDays]

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

Cause, I don't see your negative feedback at work in these data:
View attachment 486934

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Excuse me while I wipe the tears off my cheeks ...

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

There's a very good reason why weather stations report relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... as cloud formation depends strictly on relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... another thing to keep in mind is that the equilibrium state of the atmosphere is to be fully saturated with water vapor, RH = 100% ... most of us never see this living on land, but out over the ocean any dry air mass near the surface with suck up water as fast as the air can ... increasing surface temperatures increases evaporation ...

Now, let me introduce you to something we call the Law of Conservation of Mass ... water can be neither created nor destroyed under normal environmental conditions ... so all the water evaporated into the atmosphere will eventual condense and form cloud droplets ... the more water evaporated, the more clouds will form ... Meteorology 201 ...

The IPCC and Alarmists completely ignore this basic fact of nature ... first because including the convective transfer of energy ruins any and all predictions of catastrophe ... as this convective transfer of energy occurs without a change in temperature ... the energy required to evaporate one gram of water would raise the temperature of one gram of dry air by 2,100ºC ... this seriously reduced the radiative transfer and the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures ... second, more clouds increases albedo, less solar energy reaching the surface and being absorbed ... less energy being re-emitted as IR to be interfered with by CO2 ...

IPCC has to ignore this, or their reason to exist would cease ... no more pay to write reports 7 times longer than the Holy Bible ...

I may not be smarter than a climatologist, but I sure as am smarter than you ... and all I did was take a class ... maybe something you should look into ...

Oh, aren't you the smart one; smart enough, one might think, to explain why we have not seen any increase in cloud cover over the last century or so.

PS: let's take a fixed parcel of air containing a fixed amount of water vapor. What happens to its relative humidity as we raise its temperature?

PPS: if equilibrium condition is 100% RH, why is the vapor pressure of water temperature dependent?

A good discussion of this issue may be found at 47. Relative humidity over the oceans – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

Oh, aren't you the smart one; smart enough, one might think, to explain why we have not seen any increase in cloud cover over the last century or so.

Can we measure that today? ... maybe, I'm impressed with these new generation GOES satellites ... but no way can we do this from the ground 100 years ago ... what explanation did you expect? ...

if equilibrium condition is 100% RH, why is the vapor pressure of water temperature dependent?

Because vapor pressure is defined at saturation ... 100% RH ... as temperature increases, the air holds more water vapor for the same RH ...

A good discussion of this issue may be found at 47. Relative humidity over the oceans – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

Last sentence second paragraph:

"So, to first order we can say that RH over the oceans does not change much in these simulations, relative to the decrease that would occur at fixed vapor concentrations. To second order RH near the surface over the oceans actually increases modestly."

Exactly what I said ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The relative humidity of air above water is 100% - for a boundary layer a few molecules thick and is simply the result of the interaction of evaporation and diffusion. The standard elevation for atmospheric calculations of "surface conditions" is two meters. At that elevation, RH above the oceans is roughly 80%. A logarithmic gradient exists between the two elevations.

You neglect uplift in the atmosphere ... what happens to RH when pressure is going down ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How smart do you have to be to know that it's not a good idea to want the planet to be colder when it's in the middle of an ice age?

And here he is again, telling us to run the furnace full blast in July, because winter will eventually come.

A lot of deniers are just extremely stupid human beings.

Soooooooo, how much, if any, does temperature increase when CO2 is increased from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[mamooth]

<Makes a polite observation that it appears that Mamooth has stepped away to check a few things....but by all means, please carry on as I've learned quite a lot over the last 30 minutes defining blast furnace relative to operating on 3C differential and the like...still relatively clueless but I like to consider all steps towards learning a good thing. The ball is sitting motionless in Mamooth's corner with select board readers awaiting his calculations

So why do you and jc think that a 3C difference makes for a blast furnace?

Do you understand how saying that makes you both look like cult imbeciles?