Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Cooling?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 3 of 79 (454771)
02-08-2008 4:58 PM


Solar activities down
I was wondering last year with the lack of massive hurricanes in America and with all the snow I'm having to shovel this year if in fact it was due to low solar activity.
It's interesting to see the world appearing to be cooling off lately in spite of the wacko environmentalists that say its heating up due to global warming gases and not the sun solar activities. Its just like your furnace you turn the dial up and it warms up turn it down and it cools.
P.S. I'm running out of space to put the snow piling up, some friends I know are keeping their thermostat at 40 degree's F. They just hang out elsewhere until bedtime then keep warm with an electric blanket, etc...

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 02-08-2008 5:06 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 15 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 6:02 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 5 of 79 (454800)
02-08-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
02-08-2008 5:06 PM


Re: Solar activities down
johnfolton writes:
I was wondering last year with the lack of massive hurricanes in America and with all the snow I'm having to shovel this year if in fact it was due to low solar activity.
Thanks for demonstrating the most common misconception about global warming from the ignorant side of the spectrum.
Here's another look at the ignorant side of the spectrum!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
15. Incredible. Will somebody show me a statistical analysis showing CO2 changes leading temperature changes in the paleorecord?
If CO2 has a forcing effect beyond background noise, there should be *some* positive mathematical correlation. The fact there is nothing showing that CO2 changes actually caused temperature changes should be paramount in this discussion, as it pertains to reality.
The fact there is *no correlation* yet the Supreme Court just made it easier for politicos to control carbon, therefore life, is scary.
Grist.org: Climate. Justice. Solutions. | Grist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 02-08-2008 5:06 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 5:25 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 8 of 79 (455059)
02-10-2008 2:23 AM


I find it interesting the scientists in the field are screaming to the flat earthers (Gore and company, etc....)that the earth is round that were not the cause of global warming, but no one listens to the experts these days, etc...
P.S. You must remember Gore is not a scientists, the media was wrong in the 1980's they were screaming global cooling was caused by fossil fuel not listening to the scientists then and the media are wrong today screaming global warming is caused by fossil fuel.
I guess if we made diesel and gasoline from coal that would make energy cheap green up the earth, but it won't happen not because of science but because of politics, unless congress intervenes in America these wacko flat earthers (Hiliary or Obama if elected) will start taxing that which powers your car, heats your home, and say the lie that your doing your part to stop global warming, etc....
Heaven help us if they would sign that perverted kyoto treaty and use the EPA to enforce this ungodly tax, etc...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 16 of 79 (455133)
02-10-2008 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by fgarb
02-10-2008 5:25 PM


Global dimming?
We do know from physics/chemistry that CO2 is one of the gasses that reflects the IR light the earth radiates to cool itself. I'm no expert, but obviously this is expected to cool the earth and most computer simulations agree that this effect explains most of the warming we have seen.
Greenhouse gases might actually be cooling the earth not warming the earth.
More clouds reflects more heat too, etc... right?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We said that this section was not going to have conclusion, but at least the part of the global cooling deserves one. We learned that now the Earth can reflect the solar light and instead of forming a greenhouse effect, passes all the opposite: the heat does not enter the Earth. Although a global heating can be disastrous, much more disastrous could be a global cooling, dice to that everybody is prepared for a heating, not a cooling.
http://library.thinkquest.org/...English/causes_dimming.html
Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 5:25 PM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2008 8:52 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 21 by fgarb, posted 02-11-2008 1:50 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 19 of 79 (455140)
02-10-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
02-10-2008 8:52 PM


Re: Global dimming?
However, I would suggest that it is interesting to note that, if as you say the Earth is actually entering a cooling trend - whether natural or anthropogenic causes predominate - we have the problem of explaining the significant reduction in ice cover of most North and South American glaciers. Wouldn't they be expanding, rather than contracting if the Earth was cooling?
I'm not saying were entering a global cooling problem just entering evidence that air temperature fluctuations follow solar cycles not increases or decreases of hydrocarbon use.
The chart within this link shows hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature change.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Historically we can clearly see that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature changes. Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%.
Page not found - McKinnon Broadcasting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2008 8:52 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by fgarb, posted 02-11-2008 2:09 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 24 of 79 (455171)
02-11-2008 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by fgarb
02-11-2008 2:09 AM


Re: Global dimming?
What could possibly be making you say that b is the cause of the warming?
It appears CO2 gas does not refract light thus apparently has no greenhouse effect ? I guess its just another molecule in the atmosphere and as one of my previous links that water vapor is not being factored into the equations because without water vapor Co2 appears to have meaning even so its meaningless due to the volume of water vapor thru the water cycle. The oceans are massive solar radiation water vapor simply dwarfs Co2 as all the charts attests.
Enjoy !!!!!!!!!
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Increased plant growth more Co2 uptaken by plants, etc...More oxygen for the planet, plants able to grow with less water, increase in plant growth, etc...
-------------------------------------------------------------
The increased CO2 might also directly increase plant growth and productivity as well. In fact, this theory, known as the CO2 Fertilization Effect, has led some scientists to suggest that the Greenhouse Effect might be a blessing in disguise. Laboratory experiments have shown that increased CO2 concentrations potentially promote plant growth and ecosystem productivity by increasing the rate of photosynthesis, improving nutrient uptake and use, increasing water-use efficiency, and decreasing respiration, along with several other factors (OTA, 1993). The scientists, encouraged by these benefits, hypothesize that increased ecosystem productivity will actually help draw excess CO2 from the atmosphere, thereby diminishing concerns about global warming (OTA, 1993).
http://drought.unl.edu/whatis/cchange.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's some more charts that support atomospheric temperatures is regulated by the sun not Co2, etc...
-------------------------------------
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The concentrations of water vapor is increasing in the stratosphere and the troposphere, etc...
-------------------------------
Upper Troposphere and Stratosphere
Chair: D. Kley (Germany), e-mail: d.kley@fz-juelich.de .kley@fz-juelich.de>
Co-Chair: J.M. Russell III (USA) e-mail: james.russell@hamptonu.edu
Water vapour in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere is critically important for overall atmospheric radiative transfer, but, at present, knowledge of the mean distribution of water vapour, variability on seasonal and other timescales, and the controlling processes is limited.
A significant increase in the number and quality of stratospheric water vapour measurements has occurred over the past 25 years, particularly with the advent of satellite observations. Stated accuracy of most in situ and remote instruments as well as direct or indirect comparisons of coincident field measurements cluster within a 10% range. The concentration of stratospheric water vapour in the "overworld" (Q ? ~380 K) is determined by dry air upwelling through the tropical tropopause, methane oxidation in the stratosphere, and transport by the poleward-and-downward (Brewer-Dobson) mean circulation. At the tropical tropopause, air transported into the stratosphere is dried by a complex combination of processes that act on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Water vapour in the upper troposphere is controlled by local and regional circulation patterns and seasonal changes of upper tropospheric temperature. There has been a 2 ppmv increase of stratospheric water vapour since the middle 1950s. This is substantial given typical current stratospheric values of 4-6 ppmv. Photochemical oxidation of methane in the stratosphere produces approximately two molecules of water vapour per molecule of methane. The increase in the concentration of tropospheric methane since the 1950s (0.55 ppmv) is responsible for at most one half of the increase in stratospheric water vapour over this time period. It is not clear what is responsible for the remainder of the observed increase in stratospheric water vapour.
Object not found!
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by fgarb, posted 02-11-2008 2:09 AM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 27 by fgarb, posted 02-12-2008 1:16 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 26 of 79 (455236)
02-11-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
02-11-2008 9:28 AM


Re: Global dimming?
Man-made production of energy based upon fossil fuels is the single biggest contributor to increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that is why there is so much discussion recently about CO2 artificial sequestration
I agree man made contributions from man has increased however its meaningless because when you factor in water vapor its only .28% of the Greenhouse effect meaning you could ban all man contributions and it would not affect global warming.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's some more charts that support atomospheric temperatures is regulated by the sun not Co2, etc...
-------------------------------------
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 9:23 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 28 of 79 (455358)
02-12-2008 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by fgarb
02-12-2008 1:16 AM


Re: Global dimming?
So to claim that water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect is crazy.
Sounds like water vapor alone would remove more infrared heat if all the other absorbers including Co2 were removed. Does this mean Co2 is reducing the absorbtion ability of water vapor. That too me kind of supports global dimming, it does not seem to be supporting Co2 is increasing the absorbtion of infared radiation!!!!!!!!
It is interesting that within the troposphere 95 % is considered water vapor and them charts in them other links you have not gotten to yet supporting the sun is the cause of global cooling or global warming. The air temperature changes simply are not following your industrial Co2 increases, however following the solar fluctuations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Partly because the infrared absorption bands of the various components of the atmosphere overlap, the contributions from individual absorbers do not add linearly. Clouds trap only 14 percent of the radiation with all other major species present, but would trap 50 percent if all other absorbers were removed [105]
U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by fgarb, posted 02-12-2008 1:16 AM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by fgarb, posted 02-13-2008 1:16 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 30 of 79 (455404)
02-12-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
02-12-2008 9:23 AM


Re: Global dimming?
Can I assume you conclude this from the same misinformation that led you to conclude that CO2 gas has no greenhouse effect?
No, my sites data are from professionals in the field however it does appear Mike Lockwood is trying to hide the minima which appears more important than the maxima, etc...
Enjoy !!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jimdk at 04:16 AM on 10 September, 2007
"From the actual data we conclude that the graphs from Lockwood and Frlish were flawed:
1. The methodology used by Lockwood and Frlish to smooth the lines was applied only to maxima of R (sunspot number), dismissing the TSI. This practice hides the minima, which for the issue are more important than the maxima. For example, if the minimum of TSI in 1975 was 1365.5 W/m^2, it would contrast dramatically with the minimum of TSI of 1998 that was 1366 W/m^2 (0.033% higher). That would make the Sun in 1975 “colder” than in 1998. However, if we compare minimum values with maximum values, then the Sun would be frankly “warmer” in 1998 -when the solar energy output was 1366 W/m^2- than in 1975 -when the energy output was 1366.1111 W/m^2. Today (21/07/07), the global TSI was 1367.6744 W/m^2); hence, we see that we must not smooth maxima values through movable trends because we would be hiding the minima values, which are more important because the baseline of the “cooler” or lower nuclear activity of the Sun are higher everyday. The coolest period of the Sun happened during the Maunder Minimum when the TSI was 1363.5 W/m^2. The coolest period of the Sun from 1985 to date occurred in 1996 when the TSI was 1365.6211 W/m^2. An interesting blotch is that in 1985 the TSI was 1365.6506 W/m^2 and in 2000 was 1366.6744."
Blog chia s kinh nghim c cc online -
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 9:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 11:45 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 32 of 79 (455427)
02-12-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
02-12-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Global dimming?
The bigger issue does the data supports solar forcing of global warming when one factors that Lockwood did not include the minima only included the maxima?
P.S. The reason the numbers differ could well be Lockwood numbers were derived by a different formula. Can you prove otherwise? I've already shown he discluded the minima, etc...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 11:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 1:09 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 34 of 79 (455500)
02-12-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
02-12-2008 1:09 PM


Re: Global dimming?
So if Lockwood's data is flawed because he excluded minima then why does it agree with the Lean figures that you cited? And both these researchers agree that the sun is not a significant contributor to global warming.
But Lean does not agree with Lockwood that solar illuminense is not increasing. Leah concluded that the graphs from Lockwood and Frolish were flawed.
P.S. In fact appears to be that Lockwood and Frlish dismissed entirely the original work of Judith Lean et al published in 2001, which mysteriously disappeared from NOAA site.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the actual data we conclude that the graphs from Lockwood and Frlish were flawed:
1- Examine closely the graph and you’ll see how the solar irradiance radiation has increased, not decreased. The trend line (dashed line) is clearly rising. We cannot rebuff evidence.
4. The graph of tropospheric temperatures is Hansen’s twisted graph. Many of us for many times have demonstrated that it does not match with reality.
Blog chia s kinh nghim c cc online -
5. Lockwood and Frlish dismissed entirely the original work of Judith Lean et al published in 2001, which mysteriously disappeared from NOAA site. However, you can review data at NASA and below this paragraph:
The graph clearly shows that the Solar Irradiance is not decreasing from 1985; on the contrary, the Solar Irradiance is increasing up to date. Mike Lockwood has declared to the press (remember that pseudoscience usually is released through Media in the first place) that the Solar Activity has decreased since 1985, while the warming is increasing since the same year, concluding that the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth’s Climate.
Blog chia s kinh nghim c cc online -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 1:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by fgarb, posted 02-13-2008 1:00 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-13-2008 8:10 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 37 of 79 (455613)
02-13-2008 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by fgarb
02-13-2008 1:16 AM


Re: Global dimming?
I'm confused about what you're trying to say here. Yes, H2O absorbs slightly less radiation when other greenhouse gases are present becuase the other gases are abosrbing some of that radiation instead.
I took it differently like clouds with water the window of absorbtion is greater thus other pollutants the window is not linear. Meaning if the cloud was only water more light in the .5 to 2.0 um would be absorbed and the cloud is absorbing other frequencies because of the concentration of water is greater than the pollutants so Co2 actually is not absorbing much if any, which is why the clouds efficiency of absorbtion is only 14 percent. So pollutants actually are supporting global dimming, etc...or global warming is being induced by solar increases.
P.S. Not sure if I can prove fraud anymore than I tried in respect to the Lockwood report. Think we're starting to get circular my sites right your sites right etc... though the northern hemisphere is absorbing more solar radiation due to the melting of the ice. This too supports more of the suns rays are not being reflected back to space which helps accelerate global warming.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Water is the sole absorber in the windows from 0.5 micrometers (m) to 2.0 m and from 5.0 m to 7.0 m, However, in some regions absorption frequencies of various GHGs overlap; water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide absorption bands overlap in the 2.0-m to 3.0-m region; water and methane absorption bands overlap in the 3.0-m to 4.0-m region; carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide absorption bands overlap in the 4.0-m to 5.0-m window; nitrous oxide and methane absorption bands overlap in the 7.0-m to 8.0-m region;
Partly because the infrared absorption bands of the various components of the atmosphere overlap, the contributions from individual absorbers do not add linearly.
U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by fgarb, posted 02-13-2008 1:16 AM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by tesla, posted 02-13-2008 10:43 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 41 by fgarb, posted 02-13-2008 12:16 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 45 of 79 (455751)
02-13-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by fgarb
02-13-2008 12:16 PM


Re: Global dimming?
I have explained in detail the problems with your sites. If you disagree with or don't understand any of the errors I have found, please say so.
I might get back to this but for now going to pretend your right that solar increases are not increasing but not really decreasing much if any either.
If you factor in the increase in methane burping from the northern hemisphere and the increase in solar rays being absorbed in the northern hemisphere that previously were being reflected the trend in global warming increase makes sense without bringing Co2 into the equation.
I mean most of the land is in the northern hemisphere and it tends to heat up quicker like the chart showing industrial pollution including Co2 not following global warming. If we have more land absorbing more solar radiation that would help continue to melt the polar caps. Its like my asphalt driveway once the sun starts to shine it helps evaporate the ice.
You all admit the suns been increasing above the 11 year cycle trend up until 1985 since then its questionable if it decreased thus you have plenty of solar radiation to continue to melt the northern polar cap glaciers. The oceans don't heat up as quickly as the land so it might also be about this increase and more steady state up to present that the oceans are still heating up as the earth oceans go thru the seasonal orbits in respect to the tilt of the earth. i MEAN if water vapor is not dependent on air temp it could well continue to be increasing absorbing more infared radiation. Your all not factoring in that water vapor is not dependent on how much water vapor air can hold at a particular temp, etc...
I'm a bit more concerned in that the united states did not have a massive hurricane last year is this due to global dimming should we be increasing Co2 emmissions instead of decreasing them? Meaning are we moving toward global cooling if the solar charts are accurate and decreasing slightly?
This too me is what Europe is concerned about because as this ice continues to melt its affecting their climate. Did politics buy off Lockwood due to their concern about ice melting affecting their climate? If Lockwood is correct it makes me wonder if instead of moving forward in global warming if we're moving towards global cooling.
It will be interesting as we move out from the low of our 11 year solar cycle if global warming is increasing, etc...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, what is going on?
Water molecules are constantly coursing back and forth between phases (another word for the three states: vapor, liquid, and solid). If more molecules are leaving a liquid surface than arriving, there is a net evaporation; if more arrive than leave, a net condensation. It is these relative flows of molecules which determine whether a cloud forms or evaporates, not some imaginary holding capacity that nitrogen or oxygen have for water vapor.
The rate at which vapor molecules arrive at a surface of liquid (cloud drop) or solid (ice crystal) depends upon the vapor pressure.
The rate at which vapor molecules leave the surface depends upon the characteristics of the surface. The number escaping varies with:
the phases involved --- molecules can escape from liquid more readily than from the solid (ice);
the shape of the boundary --- molecules escape more readily from highly curved (small) drops or ice crystals (convex);
the purity of the boundary --- foreign substances dissolved in the liquid or ice diminish the number of water molecules which can escape;
the temperature of the boundary --- at higher temperatures the molecules have more energy and can more readily escape.
And therein lies the origin of the myth. The temperature of a cloud droplet or ice crystal will be (nearly) the same as that of the air, so people imagine that somehow the air was to blame. But, if the (other gases of the) air were removed, leaving everything else the same, condensation and evaporation would proceed as before (the air was irrelevant to the behavior). To assign the behavior of water to an invented holding capacity of the air is like assigning your life's fortunes to an invented influence of the constellations (and as we all know, nobody does that anymore).
Bad Clouds
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fiddling with the Dimmer Switch
by Stan Cox
Days were brighter when you were a kid. You haven’t seen the difference, but you might have felt it. In recent years, data analysis by scientists in Israel, Australia, and the United States has shown that sunlight intensity, averaged across hundreds of locations on all continents, decreased by 1.3 to 3% per decade from the 1950s to 1990s. When reported a few years ago [1], these findings were controversial, but subsequent research has helped confirm the occurrence if not the precise magnitude of so-called “global dimming.”
http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-01.html
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by fgarb, posted 02-13-2008 12:16 PM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by tesla, posted 02-13-2008 7:09 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 47 by fgarb, posted 02-14-2008 12:21 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 48 of 79 (455840)
02-14-2008 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by tesla
02-13-2008 7:09 PM


Re: Global dimming?
so what your saying is we have a layer of smog now?
When everyone was worried about global cooling in the 1990's the EPA set particulate limits and it appears that more light is now getting to the earth in the northern hemisphere.
Hopefully China will continue to pollute the air to help global dimming and some of its pollution will continue to drift over the Pacific Ocean to help stabilize the increase in solar energies being absorbed by the earth and oceans. Its kind of like solar shades.
Then if you have pollution gases within the clouds your reducing the absorbtion ability of the clouds which does not mean Co2 can not absorb infared radiation but if an over abundance of water vapor absorbs a particular frequency then Co2 is being shielded from absorbing that particular frequency by water vapor.
Thus you find greenhouse gases reduce a clouds absorbtion ability of infared radiation pushing global dimming. You also have aerosol pollution (smog)reflecting light back to space.
However with the northern hemisphere losing its ice reflection ability and with the industrial nations like America reducing aerosols (smog) you are finding global warming appears to still be increasing not decreasing.
China appears to be helping reduce solar absorbtion but still a whole lot of surface area in the northern hemisphere absorbing solar radiation that not too long ago was reflecting solar radiation back to space.
P.S. Its like a tug of war between solar absorbtion and solar reflection. When one takes in the increased earth exposed in the northern hemisphere you have more solar absorbtion and less being reflected simply due to the continental land mass is primarily in the northern hemisphere.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The tug-of-war between warming and dimming, until recently, seems to have raised the overall temperature of the planet only gradually. Now, it appears, warming is getting the upper hand in places like the US that have reduced aerosol pollution.
http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-01.html
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by tesla, posted 02-13-2008 7:09 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by tesla, posted 02-14-2008 10:30 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 49 of 79 (455841)
02-14-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by fgarb
02-14-2008 12:21 AM


Re: Global dimming?
What do you mean? Are you talking about the idea of methane being released in large quantities from the ocean and permafrost due to warming? If so I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened yet in detectable quantities, but it is possible disaster scenario.
I was thinking more in the tundra in the northern hemisphere in the summer months due how quickly the earth can warm up think it would take a bit to warm the oceans as heat rises suspect only the upper water layer would warm up much, though it would increase water vapor and increase cloud cover, however would that increase absorbtion more than it would reflect?
Man, you really don't like Lockwood. Does he owe you money or something?
I just worry that the blame will be placed on Co2 and that means placing the burden on all the peoples of the earth. Politics etc...
Lockwood could be right that solar increases have stabilized for the present but be wrong that Co2 is causing global temperatures to be increasing even though the solar increases for the last century may have temporarily stablilized.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by fgarb, posted 02-14-2008 12:21 AM fgarb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by tesla, posted 02-14-2008 10:32 AM johnfolton has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024