What Do We Think About Climate Change

ya its the land based ice that has folks worried
well some folks
its the fresh water influx that is actually the major concern
a rapid influx of fresh water would basically disrupt the grand oceanic current that is responsible for distributing so much of the planets heat
basically the grand oceanic current is a giant radiator
kill the radiator
overheat the engine
or possibly freeze it up entirely
again snow ball earth theory
its in the thread


B

 

Yup and we can stop it! Just buy yah K-Tel global warming kit by dialing 1800 - Al Gore on a phone near you!

 

All the substance, Twice the insult

Hey Boston,

ANYONE can grasp gas laws and vapor pressure; that goes all the way back to middle school physical science.

So you still believe that water vapor begets more water vapor in a vicious cycle wherein water vapor becomes the augmenter of every atmospheric thermal perturbation? After all, If CO2 can do it, so can CH4, and for that matter so can summer and day time versus winter and night. So why does the climate not run away from those ordinary perturbations, which are all larger in magnitude than that caused by your precious CO2?

Could it be because the earth's albedo (look it up, *****) is actually dominated by clouds rather than ice as the AGW fools would have us believe, and that when there is more water vapor, clouds proliferate, resulting in a net cooling, meaning that water vapor is a climate stabilizer rather than a destabilizer?

This is probably the tenth time I've attempted to explain this to you. Read the words very slowly, looking them up as your eyes fall on the unfamiliar ones and maybe you'll finally get it his time, monkey boy.

This concept has long ago transcended the realm of pure theory (unlike your hereo's 'Virgin Stratosphere' nonsense which no one even bothers to try to prove or disprove as it's SO ridiculous ) through the work of Spencer, Lindzen, Christy and others. No wonder you work so hard to discredit them; they've crushed the crux of your pet hobgoblin!


And what about that 'Virgin Stratosphere' Red herring? Do you really believe that poppycock? Why didn't the stratosphere warm with all the new CO2 up there polluting that virgin skyscape:?: Can you reference one paper in support? If not, then we are back to those pesky logarithms and their gosh darned diminishing returns, wherein we just can't get much more thrust out of increasing CO2, as it has already shot it's wad. Mikey Mann knows this is true; why do you think he concocted the MMVS red herring in the first place ?

When you've come up with an answer to this, one that actually gibes with observed facts, unlike your 'water vapor forcing' AGW dogma, then you can try to grasp the reality that whenever we test the CO2 in our present atmosphere to determine it's origin through measurement of the isotopic mass balance, we can clearly see that the vast majority of it (97%, your favorite number ) is NOT sourced from fossil fuels, but from terrestrial and pelagic biotic sources. Of course everyone reading this thread knows that because of the previous postings, and knows you could not source one single study which supports the "all or nearly all" attribution of nascent CO2 rise to anthropogenic sources, as you have repeatedly asserted. Your assertion is again without any foundation in science, but is a matter of faith.

Take up Bible reading, for God's sake, and stop screwing around in science!




Jimbo

 

apparently not

as you have once again failed in the basic physics
what is a vapor and what is a solid Jim
are you even able to make that distinction
the simplest issue there can possibly be and you get it wrong
again

clouds are made up of water
solid
a conglomeration of microscopic water droplets condensed around a fragment of dust or what have you

water vapor is the molecular form of water
it is evenly distributed with in a given volume

*****

you have once again proven yourself incompetent
when you dont even understand the difference between water vapor and solid water or what makes up a cloud and what is a gas

first flaming error that you will insist on continuing throughout this conversation

everyone catching this cause this is classic

throughout this entire thread Jim has failed to comprehend that a cloud is not water vapor its water droplets condensing out of the vapor in the atmosphere
vapor does not isolate itself within a volume
vapor rather distributes itself within a volume of a consistent pressure

not sure if thats Boyle's law or charlie's law or the ideal gas law but thats basically it and I bet I got it dam close for being five o clock in the morning

another blatant and obvious example of a complete inability to comprehend the content of the conversation

quote me please on my having said that water vapor begets more water vapor
you have once again completely misunderstood the basics of our previous conversations

why do you think you are referred to as deniers
obviously you deny the basics of science in order to maintain your bs

clouds are liquid water condensing on surfaces of particulate mater in the atmosphere
vapor is molecular H2O
idiot
and it obeys the gas pressure laws
any idea what dew point is Jim
or how temp effects it cause your lack of understanding is legendary at this point and it is this exact fundamental misunderstanding thats we've been over numerous times within this thread and certainly not any of your pedestrian level diatribe

albedo of snow and arctic ice is about a consistent 80~90% and at the beginning of the industrial age covered about 15% of the surface of the planet ( estimated )
albedo of clouds depends on droplet size and is typically considered to be about an average of 10~15% although it can be as high as 90% under extreme and unusual circumstances
low dense clouds tend to have a positive albedo ( net cooling ) while high thin clouds tend to have a negative albedo ( contribute to global warming )
the average droplet size is falling cause the average volume of particulate mater is rising allowing for less water to condense on more particles and so a smaller size and a lower albedo overall
at any given time the surface of the plannet is about 25% covered in clouds depends on who you ask
or at least thats the percentage of cloud cover that actually has a positive albedo
look it up *****
cause I didn't have to
( actually cause there may be some folks who have not seen this before and since its important for folks to realize how twisted Jims argument is I thought Ild go dig up the graph of cloud cover and its relevance to heat reflected and heat trapped as the various cloud formations behave completely differently with in the system and since Jim is obviously not going to be pointing that out to anyone )



which means that in the arctic where ice is melting at a phenomenal rate things are warming up what with ice being replaced with open water
(given that ocean surface has a low albedo of something like less than 1% depending on the incidence of reflectivity and ice has an extremely high albedo of say an average of ~85%)
in exactly the manner predicted fifty years ago
exactly as measured by a variety of data sets
and in the equatorial and subtropical regions were water vapor content has more influence and were con trail formation has significantly greater influence than in temperate zones things are actually cooler than the forcing's predict, but still warming
with anything like 10~30% reduction of lumen's as measured at the surface based on this additional particulate matter and the advent of con trail proliferation
and still we have warming
holly **** you have no clue what you are talking about
its obvious your struggling in an area that is simply not withing your realm of comprehension

vapor is irrelevant to cloud formation without the incidence of temp variation to instigate condensation about a particulate core
fool
and the particulate density must be low enough for the size of the droplet to have sufficient albedo to have much of an effect at all and the altitude of the cloud formation must also be low enough for the droplets to get large enough
an occurrence that is less and less in an era where we have so much soot and ash being pumped into the atmosphere
so you see Jim all you did was shoot yourself in the foot again when you fail to realize that although the cloud cover may be from 50~75% on any given day and that is giving you a lot of leeway the actual value of that cloud covers positive albedo varies between only 10~20% ttl if that and at a average what 0~15% reflectivity

now the world ice cover has fallen to about 12~13% and dropping fast with an average albedo of about 85%
and the average world cloud cover of a positive albedo is about 10~20% with an average albedo of about 10% tops and that is giving you a lot in terms of average positive albedo
you figure it out if your able
which one has a greater influence on global climate change
Ill give you a hint

its not the bloody clouds and it never was

give up on your faith based bs and take some science classes if you can muster the prerequisites
cause clearly you have no idea what you are talking about

and your insistence on talking about areas that you do not understand has been prevalent within this discussion
need I go back and quote some of the many discussions we have had where you completely failed to comprehend the subject mater instead depending on a cut and paste effort to defend the diatribe you so desperately cling to. For god sakes man stop embarrassing yourself and at least look up a few things before you go mouthing off in public

love
B

ps
this has all been written about within the thread before
you didnt get it then
your not getting it now
need I really go point it out
and that includes the part about con trails

you really should think twice before you go making a blatantly phony argument like that Jim
didnt work out for you to well now did it
and in the end who ended up looking like the ***** when every point of the argument you tried to present turned out to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the simple physics involved

its late, Im plastered and I just got in from the club and the girl is yelling at me so I gotta go
but
in the future if you would like to have a less adversarial discourse
your at least going to have to argue from a position of some merit rather than from dream land

if you want to continue embarrassing yourself dont let me slow you down any
cause I dont think anyone could possibly miss that you just got your *** kicked
or that I did it while plastered three sheets to the wind with the girl hounding me at some ungodly hour of the morning
arrrrg
I gotta go

cheers
B

 

Well lets see here, Boston is calling people names again, posting figures he can't back up with names, repeating discredited reports based on faulty data, and he's drunk by his own admission. Nothings changed, I'll check back tomorrow to see it any real discourse is taking place here or if the bully is still whining cause he can't get his way.

 

well lets see here, Sloweddy is crying foul because he and his cronies starting slinging mud and now complain that it came back at them,
typical whining from childish people who are unable to cling to there ignorance

anyone can see that what you "wonderful people" are up to
and its not working is it

the data presented was labeled for your further amusement, had you chosen to look up the data presented rather than just take the typical tact and ignore the substance of the debate you might have learned a few things. clearly its not your intention to learn anything but to cling to ignorance, sling mud and cry foul when you loose

ps
unlike those who cry foul when they find themselves dramatically outclassed and on the receiving end of exactly the kind of consideration they give others I actually know the data so if you feel as though you can find fault with it feel free but my bet is you will be posting information from agnotists rather than from respected members of the scientific community.
your odds are roughly 3 in 97 with a respectable ~1/2 of that 3 having proved themselves bought and paid for agnotists
lets see if you can dig up that ~1.5% of honest scientists who disagree and should you somehow get lucky
your still wrong cause the consensus is hugely against you

seems pretty obvious who is whining cause "they" are obviously struggling here with even the most basic of concepts

what a putz
wants to dish it out but cant take it at all
if this is all just to hard for you
all you need do is act in a civilized manor and you will receive the same

 

since certain people are proving themselves overly sensitive
why dont I start again with the civility and see who follows
Ill repost the previous without all the spit and vinegar so we all get a nice fresh start eh

the lack of basics is killing you guys so Ill just blast threw a quick review and you folks can start complaining from there

there are three states of matter
gas liquid solid (and plasma actually)
plasma is a little new so Ill leave it out for the time being to keep things simple

what is the difference can anyone tell me

keeping it simple a gas (vapor) is an atomic or molecular substance obeying the ideal gas laws

example = air

what is a liquid
it is a conglomeration of molecules of varying bond strength freely moving about and forming a loose boundary layer within a given space

example = a droplet in a cloud

what is a solid

atoms or molecules within a solid do not tend to change position as freely as they do in a liquid or a gas. They tend to be packed in a denser form and tend to be packed in a uniform pattern. Solids generally hold there shape unless acted on by some outside force

example = rocks, like what some folks got for brains

now I didnt go look any of that up folks and Im sure you will be able to find a variety of definitions however
generally since Im teaching classes these days when I get questions regarding the basics I refer them to the end of the class once the rest of the class has moved through the days curriculum
so if you wish to argue the basics of what a gas liquid or solid is you will need to drop out of the conversation for the moment and I would be happy to provide literature on the subject for you at some more convenient time

my next post will concern albedo or reflectivity
since my uncle is one of the worlds leading optical physicists its a subject I know more about than I ever wanted to and dam if I ever thought it would come in handy

so
do we have any issues with the states of matter

by the way this is the third or fourth time I have suggested we take it from the top in civilized manor

 

Atmosphere heats, water evaporates, clouds form, clouds cause net cooling, rain falls, clouds clear, atmosphere heats, repeat ad infinitum.

Any other understanding blatantly contradicts the most easily observed, ordinary daily realities of weather.

If the IPCC/AGW understanding of cloud physics is the correct one, then the tropics would be hot (VERY hot, like hotter than the world's hottest desserts) with CLEAR skies and very dry. But instead the tropics are warm and wet with skies always cloudy and nearly incessant rainfall.

Boston likes to pretend that water vapor and clouds are unrelated phenomena. He like to make believe that once water vapor gets into the atmosphere, some 'mystery' cooling event has to come along and precipitate it out. The idea that water vapor concentration is self-regulating via the simple and elegant mechanism of albedo change due to cloud formation, which is in turn driven by water vapor concentration, is abhorrent to him, because he knows if it's true, then his pet theory is dead, at least scientifically speaking.

Jimbo

 

well that was at least a tad more civil so we are heading in the right direction at least

its been a challenge to stay on track so when I get a chance Ill write part two and we can begin to see how vapor turns into clouds and why clouds act in such a variety of ways with some being + albedo and some being - albedo

then once that is understood we can move on to the issue of ice, snow and open water albedo

but again Jim your assessment of the system fails to consider mitigating factor's and we will get into those once we can all agree on the basics
so lets just take it one step at a time since its these basics that seem to be the problem

 

None of the other albedo's really matter, Boston, if the mechanism of cloud formation works as I've outlined, since water vapor concentration is then self-regulating. Ice and ocean albedo is not the issue; the issue is whether water vapor concentration rises as a result of thermal perturbations to the system. If it works as outlined (and we have A LOT of confirming observed data), then it does not, and it's again game over for AGW via CO2.

Jimbo

 

Jim, read what Boston has to say/write, weather is more complex than your simplistic postulation and I for one lack the patience and perseverance of Boston, and the lessons worthy of other readers should not be interrupted out of childish arrogance....

 

Mas,

I have no idea on what you base your opinions WRT this subject, but be aware that there is a real scarcity of scientific papers which can quantify/support this idea of positive feedback/unstable equilibrium with water vapor. It is simply ASSUMED by the IPCC and other AGW alarmists! All the observed data contradict this idea. The predictions of future climates based on this understanding have a 25 year history of FAILURE toward the high side. Look at what Hansen (the chief proponent of the unstable equilibrium idea) was saying two decades ago. Did it come to pass? NO! How about his predictions of 10 years ago; have they come to fruition? NO WAY!

The very idea that water vapor is the augmenter of all thermal perturbations to the atmosphere is simply absurd. If it were so, then why don't the tropics look like desserts? Why is there no shortage of rainfall in the summer in the tropics?

Jimbo

 

thats why the basics need to be gone over
because a lack of understanding of the basic principals of how clouds and vapor interact is essential to understanding both the albedo and the feedback between water vapor and co2

your jumping ahead Jim
lets just take it slowly from the top and agree on the basics
then we can go into what the studies found and why

seems like a logical approach when folks have such a basic disagreement as this eh

 

Boston

You're just setting things up for another battle of the gurus. Richard Lindzen, perhaps the world's most expert scientist on the subject of cloud physics, says the feedback is negative. His colleagues over at UAH, Christy and Spemcer, have papers which support his ideas with good observational data.

All you can do is parade about another expert and try to convince us all that we should believe him instead of Lindzen, Christy and Spencer.

In the end, we can look to the failed predictions based on the AGW/IPCC understanding of cloud physics. As Lindzen and Spencer have both stated, it's very clear that a large negative feedback mechanism is being left out of their calculus, thus the consistent high-side failures.

Jimbo

 

once again thats why the basics need to be gone over
so that we can look at what has been written of this subject with a informed eye and from a place of agreement on the basics
that way we are more likely to find that middle ground that would help bring this conversation along in a more reasonable manor

continually attempting to jump ahead is not going to accomplish much

also it is important that we agree on what science is and the parameters as to how it is conducted
basically the ethics of science
what constitutes good science
what constitutes bad science
what constitutes well conducted science
and what constitutes biased science
all will need to be covered in order to have a scientific debate concerning these issues

your mention of Singer and Christy are perfect places to start, but its essential that the ethics of good science be understood before any consideration of there views can be interjected into the debate