Maunder Minimum

[Cardinal Carminative]

How does the existence of water vapor cause more water to enter it's vapor state?

It's a feedback in that more CO2 causes warming in the lower atmosphere which causes more water vapor to be added into the atmosphere and H2O is another greenhouse gas.

... do you know what feedback is?

Yeah, vide supra.

Water vapor doesn't feedback anything ...

Have you honestly NOT read ANY actual climate change literature? Seriously...this is all over pretty much every description of the greenhouse effect. You'd have to have not read ANYTHING to not know this.

I mean no offense.

 

[skookerasbil]

Very few caring much about climate change.....

The Politics of Climate

 

[ReinyDays]

I have to keep stressing that the ocean has currents which also run up and down in the water column. It transfers heat not just through passive convection through standing water.

I thought I'd made that clear with the discussion of the NADW.

Oceanolography isn't your strong suit I guess ... from Vedantu Learning Center: ...

"Oceanic circulation can be divided into two kinds: wind-driven circulation and thermohaline circulation. Wind-driven circulation involves the horizontal movement of surface seawater with the help of wind current and it generates large gyres on the ocean. In contrast, thermohaline circulation is much sluggish and involves the vertical movement of seawater predominantly. It is observed that such circulation has a typical speed of 1 centimetre per second but it involves a movement of huge amounts of water that carries heat, salts and other nutrients of seawater." ... [Emphasis mine]

So ... thermohaline current is 0.01 m/s ... Gulf Stream is 2 m/s ... are you still having basic arithmetic issues? ... which one of these carries 200 times the power ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

"Temperature and salinity are the main driving force of such circulation of seawater. During the winter season, the surface water becomes denser due to cooling and net evaporation that is why it sinks to the deeper region of the ocean and spreads slowly. Seawater at depth replaces the surface water that sinks. That is how the thermohaline circulation takes place."

I am glad you brought this up ... I was wrong about the mechanism ... but my argument still stands... "just in winter, that'll turn your annual average to garbage?" ...

A good local example of this is the outflow of the Mediterranean ... so much water is evaporating off the surface that the water is much more salty as it leaves ... research shows this denser water flows "downhill" just like a river to the ocean abyss ... just not enough mass to carry much energy ... and it too is very slow ...

God ... look at the map ... this isn't in the oceans ... it's in the Atlantic ... and that's not a real ocean ... I'm from the Best West Coast, so I know better ... that's driving your global averages down down down ... too much of the oceans aren't subject as much to this current ...

The only thing you made clear is that you don't know very much about the NADW ...

ETA: [Later] ... that should read "vertical convection" ... my apologies ... horizontal convection would NOT be inhibited by this mechanic ...

The math works out. Because it includes details about how ocean circulation actually works.

Not even close. You are talking straight convection in a standing body of water. That couldn't be FURTHER AWAY from what the ocean is like.

There is a temperature inversion in the oceans ... as we are heating the oceans from the top ... this top layer of water is the least dense, thus most buoyant ... and will stay at the top ... inhibiting convection ...

Just so we're clear ... the short wave energy is deposited in the top 1 meter of the ocean ... making that layer "hot" with respect to the layer below it and also the atmosphere above it ... here the 2nd Law requires energy to leave this top layer, and to leave through any means possible, up or down ... proportional to the force driving the energy ... you do remember what "work performed" is, don't you? ... we can't convect down the water column, but we sure as hell can convect up the air column ... same with radiation ...

If you're conducting the energy down ... then you're not irradiating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere .. now are you? ... think "1st Law" "1st Law" "1st Law" "1st Law"

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Oceanolography isn't your strong suit

Do you disagree with my characterization of ocean currents????

Remember, I've actually been involved in measuring those things!

"Oceanic circulation can be divided into two kinds: wind-driven circulation and thermohaline circulation.

That "thermohaline circulation" is exactly what I was talking about. Perhaps before you try to take on someone who actually has direct experience in a topic you should learn it yourself.

Wow.

I am glad you brought this up ... I was wrong about the mechanism ... but my argument still stands... "just in winter, that'll turn your annual average to garbage?" ...

Except you completely missed the thermohaline circulation.

The only thing you made clear is that you don't know very much about the NADW ...

Really? How? I've actually touched water from the bottom of the Atlantic from the NADW itself. I helped TRACK IT.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's a feedback in that more CO2 causes warming in the lower atmosphere which causes more water vapor to be added into the atmosphere and H2O is another greenhouse gas.

This is cause-and-effect ... where does the "effect" here provide more "cause"? ... the sound energy coming from the speaker, the effect, is causing the guitar string to vibrate more, the original cause ... thus we call this a feedback loop ... and the guitar string from just the slightest of plucks will eventually ... hopefully ... trigger a circuit breaker someplace ... or worse blow out speaker and catch the amp on fire ...

We all understand that it's not just the carbon dioxide, adding this does add more water vapor ... and all this is taken into consideration with these climate models run on computers ... and the IPCC predicts a 2ºC temperature increase over the next 100 years under the RCP4.5 scenario (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5) ... that includes all GHGs ...

There are real feedbacks in the climate system ... just that none will do what you need them to do ... it's just a sciency word that most people don't understand ...

Have you honestly NOT read ANY actual climate change literature? Seriously...this is all over pretty much every description of the greenhouse effect. You'd have to have not read ANYTHING to not know this.

I mean no offense.

Sure I've read climate change advocacy literature ... but I only accept that which follows the Laws of Physics ... are you ready to defend the existence of Hypercanes, or will you admit that lies are presented in the commercial media? ...

I look for the scientific citations, and follow those ... more often than not, the paper doesn't make the conclusion the article does ... making the article a lie ... don't get me started on Hockey Sticks (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5) ...

I took an Atmospheric Science class is all ... the fundimentals of the science ... so many claims in the advocacy literature violate these basic principles ... like Hypercanes ... so I'm always skeptical ... as any educated individual should be ... and apply "common sense" ... if a climate catastrophe has never happened before, why would you believe it will happen in the future? ... I don't get that ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you disagree with my characterization of ocean currents????

Remember, I've actually been involved in measuring those things!




That "thermohaline circulation" is exactly what I was talking about. Perhaps before you try to take on someone who actually has direct experience in a topic you should learn it yourself.

Wow.




Except you completely missed the thermohaline circulation.



Really? How? I've actually touched water from the bottom of the Atlantic from the NADW itself. I helped TRACK IT.

"Oceanic circulation can be divided into two kinds: wind-driven circulation and thermohaline circulation. Wind-driven circulation involves the horizontal movement of surface seawater with the help of wind current and it generates large gyres on the ocean. In contrast, thermohaline circulation is much sluggish and involves the vertical movement of seawater predominantly. It is observed that such circulation has a typical speed of 1 centimetre per second but it involves a movement of huge amounts of water that carries heat, salts and other nutrients of seawater." ... [Emphasis mine]

Do you disagree with this statement? ... if so ... then what would be the correct statement? ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

This is cause-and-effect ... where does the "effect" here provide more "cause"?

I honestly don't know how to simplify the answer more for you. If one GHG causes an increase in temperature which causes a SECOND GHG to increase thus leading to more warming that sounds like a near textbook example of how a feedback loop works.

There are real feedbacks in the climate system ... just that none will do what you need them to do ... it's just a sciency word that most people don't understand ...

If I just described a feedback system (based on what the actual experts say) how do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

"Oceanic circulation can be divided into two kinds: wind-driven circulation and thermohaline circulation. Wind-driven circulation involves the horizontal movement of surface seawater with the help of wind current and it generates large gyres on the ocean. In contrast, thermohaline circulation is much sluggish and involves the vertical movement of seawater predominantly. It is observed that such circulation has a typical speed of 1 centimetre per second but it involves a movement of huge amounts of water that carries heat, salts and other nutrients of seawater." ... [Emphasis mine]

Do you disagree with this statement? ... if so ... then what would be the correct statement? ...

I don't disagree with either statement. I honestly don't see what your point is. Other than you accusation that I somehow failed to explain ocean circulation.

I did. I honestly don't see where I failed to explain that to you already.

 

[ding]

Wrong. Read the literature.

If you could remove the earth's atmosphere the effect would be immediate. That's due to the greenhouse effect.

Climate sensitivity is gooblygook arm waving.

 

[ding]

They are measuring atmospheric temperature after all, right?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Climate sensitivity is gooblygook arm waving.

When you say stuff like that you are effectively saying that the ENTIRE FIELD is wrong and only YOU know the right way to do it.

So now you know better than thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the world who have been working on this topic for nearly a century.

Does that cause you any concern that maybe you are the one who is wrong?

Just curious.

 

[ding]

When you say stuff like that you are effectively saying that the ENTIRE FIELD is wrong and only YOU know the right way to do it.

So now you know better than thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the world who have been working on this topic for nearly a century.

Does that cause you any concern that maybe you are the one who is wrong?

Just curious.

You mean the same guys who say the science is settled? Yeah, anyone who says that is wrong. They are measuring atmospheric temperature, right? The GHG effect is real time. You don't need to wait centuries for it's effect.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You mean the same guys who say the science is settled?

No, I mean literally everyone in the field.

Yeah, anyone who says that is wrong. They are measuring atmospheric temperature, right? The GHG effect is real time. You don't need to wait centuries for it's effect.

Funny, you disagree with all the world's experts. Does that give you pause at all? Not even a little?

Whenever you find yourself on the opposite side of all the world's experts you are either a once-in-a-millennium genius or you are simply wrong.

I know where the good bet is at.

 

[ding]

No, I mean literally everyone in the field.



Funny, you disagree with all the world's experts. Does that give you pause at all? Not even a little?

Whenever you find yourself on the opposite side of all the world's experts you are either a once-in-a-millennium genius or you are simply wrong.

I know where the good bet is at.

Exactly. The same guys who say the science is settled.

No. Not even a little. The geologic record overwhelmingly shows that the 100,000's or so of temperature changes of 1C or more over the earth's 4 billion year history have been overwhelmingly the result of natural causes that were not CO2.

You know... the causes you casually dismiss.

 

[daveman]

To be quite fair it was because you were being a dick.



No I don't. You don't matter.



You know, I actually tried in this post to be nice and understanding with regards to your lack of education.

Apologies for failing to be as much of an asshole as you are.

What an arrogant child! You cultists really do get angry that people are allowed to disagree with you.

 

[daveman]

LOL. Geology has nothing to do with this? LOL.

I mean, really, that's hilarious.

How do you think you know anything about the earth's climate PAST? Yeah, that's geology. Oceanography is part of the earth sciences and that's INTEGRAL to this topic.

Wow. The amount of stuff that you DON'T know is beyond amazing!

Seriously dude, you are a gem! Hilarious!

Really? What can we do to geology to prevent climate change? Rearrange the rocks?

 

[daveman]

No, I mean literally everyone in the field.



Funny, you disagree with all the world's experts. Does that give you pause at all? Not even a little?

Whenever you find yourself on the opposite side of all the world's experts you are either a once-in-a-millennium genius or you are simply wrong.

I know where the good bet is at.

Science is NEVER settled. Anyone who claims it is is selling snake oil.

And Appeal to Authority is not a compelling argument. In the Middle Ages, the "experts" agreed the Earth was flat. Did that make it so?

 

[daveman]

Really? How? I've actually touched water from the bottom of the Atlantic from the NADW itself. I helped TRACK IT.

I've touched the Great Pyramid at Giza. I guess I'm an archeologist now.

 

[daveman]

"Oceanic circulation can be divided into two kinds: wind-driven circulation and thermohaline circulation. Wind-driven circulation involves the horizontal movement of surface seawater with the help of wind current and it generates large gyres on the ocean. In contrast, thermohaline circulation is much sluggish and involves the vertical movement of seawater predominantly. It is observed that such circulation has a typical speed of 1 centimetre per second but it involves a movement of huge amounts of water that carries heat, salts and other nutrients of seawater." ... [Emphasis mine]

Do you disagree with this statement? ... if so ... then what would be the correct statement? ...

OMG HE TOUCHED THE WATER MAN YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO HIM

 

[ReinyDays]

"Oceanic circulation can be divided into two kinds: wind-driven circulation and thermohaline circulation. Wind-driven circulation involves the horizontal movement of surface seawater with the help of wind current and it generates large gyres on the ocean. In contrast, thermohaline circulation is much sluggish and involves the vertical movement of seawater predominantly. It is observed that such circulation has a typical speed of 1 centimetre per second but it involves a movement of huge amounts of water that carries heat, salts and other nutrients of seawater." ... [Emphasis mine]

Do you disagree with this statement? ... if so ... then what would be the correct statement? ...

I don't disagree with either statement. I honestly don't see what your point is. Other than you accusation that I somehow failed to explain ocean circulation.

I did. I honestly don't see where I failed to explain that to you already.

I emphasized my point ... by bolding the text I wish for you to confirm ... how is it you don't see the bolded text above ... "It is observed that such circulation has a typical speed of 1 centimetre [sic] per second" ...

The Gulf Stream averages 200 centimeters per second ... 200 times as fast ... it's your explanation that fails ... the vertical motion in the oceans are minimal, and NOT effective in moving energy, not in the amount you need ... that was your claim, the oceans are soaking up the extra energy ... the 1 cm/sec speed only allows a trickle of energy downward ...

1 centimeter per second ... that's slow ...

You seem oblivious to the Equal Partition Principle ... a corollary of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... but I guess you're oblivious to this 2nd Law anyway ...

But please focus on this 1 cm/sec speed ... that's slow ... too slow ...