It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

page: 9
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Good lord, have I touched a heartstrings?




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly

I'm sure you are aware that H2O is a greenhouse gas. The amount of water vapor in the air is entirely dependent upon the temperature of the air. The warmer the air, the more H2O it can contain. As temperatures rise because of increased radiative forcing there will be more water vapor in the air. Not talking about relative humidity, that won't change because it is dependent upon temperature. Talking about the total amount of water vapor.

Now that may, or may not increase low level cloud activity. Hard to say. I think that would depend a lot on things like terrain and proximity to the ocean and what sort of ocean currents are in the vicinity. Some places would get drier and some would get wetter.

Could there a compensating effect? Maybe, but I sort of doubt it. You just want to wait and see?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: mc_squared

Good lord, have I touched a heartstrings?


Lol I can just picture your expression waiting for an answer to this question:




Let me just thank you personally for setting another fine example for global warming "skeptics" everywhere.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hah, we're getting somewhere. Yes I know H2O is a greenhouse component, and the dominant one. But what happen when this moisture reach a specific altitude? The moisture produce a cloud and then the "curtain" close (or reflect back) visible energy of Sun toward space. And I know the cloud reflect LWIR energy back to Earth, no need to mention that.

As you said wich mecanism will dominate? I am happy that you have the honesty to say it too.

But are you aware that based on assumption, we are spending vast amount of money that could be put to education, eradication of disease and improving quality of life?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

You know Einstein, more and more you act like a kid!



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Here are somes data, don't ask for the source, it would be wise to crosscheck but may be usefull as a starting point:

"
Data reported are effect of passage of cloud over sensor at two-minute intervals. It show that at noon, SW radiation peak around 1.2kW/m^2. Passage of a cloud over make irradiance drop at 600 W/m^2 typically. Commenter reported cloud reflectivity of 61% as realistic.
"

"
At LWIR, passage of clouds increase received radiation from 420 W/m^2 (morning) to around 460 W/m^2.
"

This is why I am thinking the dominant effect may be a negative feedback.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And here from my notes, effects of visible and NIR (SWIR) vs LWIR on ocean:

"
SWIR (radiation from the Sun) are mostly absorbed entirely by the ocean within TBD deph depending on clarity of water. A few tens of meters of water will absorb all light, so without scattering, all bodies of water would appear black. This is postulated as an inferior evaporation driver. Note that window of transparency for water match a BB at 6000 K, that is reasonably good approximation of the Sun. For visible spectrum, the absorption is around 10^-3 (1/cm). Phytoplankton will reflect green light.
"

"
LWIR absorption by liquid water is on the order of 6 magnitude higher than visible spectrum, 10^3 (1/cm), it is completly absorbed by few first wavelength. The quasi total effect of LWIR is evaporation of H2O (assuming a nice calm surface of water, dynamic one may transfert heat to bulk of H2O but again wind drive evaporation...)
"



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly



But what happen when this moisture reach a specific altitude?

Not much. But when a damp parcel of air rises it may or may not produce a cloud. It depends on the dew point at altitude. Sometimes it's higher, sometimes its lower. It depends upon temperature and relative humidity. And, as I said, more water vapor in warmer air is not the same as a higher relative humidity.

Whether or not that damp parcel of air rises to a sufficient level is dependent upon other factors as well. Things like the lapse rate. There are often cases of very high H2O content at the surface not a lot of clouds.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Again from my notes:

"
Tropopause is where temperature gradient decrease to 2 °C/km or lower. Above the tropopause, the air becomes almost completely dry (stratosphere). It is at an average altitude of 11km at poles and 17km at the equator.
"

"
The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere. It contains approximately 80% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of its water vapor and aerosols. The average depth of the troposphere is approximately 17 km (11 mi) in the middle latitudes. It is deeper in the tropical regions, up to 20 km (12 mi), and shallower near the poles, at 7 km (4.3 mi) in summer, and indistinct in winter.
"

"
If the air contains water vapor, then cooling of the air can cause the water to condense, and the behavior is no longer that of an ideal gas. If the air is at the saturated vapor pressure, then the rate at which temperature drops with height is called the saturated adiabatic lapse rate. More generally, the actual rate at which the temperature drops with altitude is called the environmental lapse rate. In the troposphere, the average environmental lapse rate is a drop of about 6.5 °C for every 1 km (1,000 meters) in increased height.
"



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Also:

"
The water cycle can be represented as a gigantic 'heat pipe', it remove energy at the surface of Earth, and release it in the troposphere (at tropopause). According to Wikipedia article 'water cycle', "Approximately 505,000 km3 of water falls as precipitation each year".
"

Regulation mechanisms (negative feedback) of water cycle are:

- Ground temp. increase -> evaporation rate increase.

- Global temp. increase -> increase of altitude of Tropopause -> increase of total surface of radiation zone (condensation zone)
see: 'Maximum parcel level'

- It is well recognized fact that Tropopause altitude depend on temperature, obviously because of convection.
see: [www-das.uwyo.edu...]

"Deep convection (thunderstorms) in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or over mid-latitude continents in summer, continuously push the tropopause upwards and as such deepen the troposphere." "a deepening by 1 km reduces the tropopause temperature by 10K."



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly


don't ask for the source,

Great opener. But I read Anthony Watts for grins.


At LWIR, passage of clouds increase received radiation from 420 W/m^2 (morning) to around 460 W/m^2.
Yes. Like CO2, clouds bounce infrared radiation back to the surface. I pointed that out earlier. That's why cloudy nights are often warmer than clear nights.


This is why I am thinking the dominant effect may be a negative feedback.

Why dominant?
You assume more low level cloud activity?
edit on 2/1/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Not much. But when a damp parcel of air rises it may or may not produce a cloud.


But I'm talking about what drive Cumulonimbus cloud.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




You assume more low level cloud activity?


Yes



Great opener. But I read Anthony Watts for grins.


Quite a bunch of wirdo and creationist there but they provide good points sometimes.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly


Quite a bunch of wirdo and creationist there but they provide good points sometimes.
No. Not really.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




No. Not really.


Never? So it's all black or white for you? Nothing in between?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly
I'm not talking about grey.
I'm talking about getting the actual science wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




I'm talking about getting the actual science wrong.


That's what I'm talking about, black or white, true or wrong!

Warmist are not completly true but not completly wrong also, denier also. When you're completly on one side or the other, this is politics, this is polarization.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly

this is politics


No. It's science.
There is, of course, much politics involved but the actual science says that increasing CO2 levels have increased forcing and as a result global temperatures have risen. The science says that as CO2 levels continue to increase, so will global temperatures.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Someone call my name? just kiddin!

Good thread to read nonetheless, slightly overwhelmed but yeah



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The science says that as CO2 levels continue to increase, so will global temperatures.


But the measurements does not agree, and as stated before what about the science of negative feedback by the water cycle? Frankly, as to show that I'm not completly polarized toward the deniers, I concede that it is possible and probable that an increase in CO2 level will produce a SMALL increase in temperature, but the negative feedback will compensate.

What if we nearly destroy the economy to avoid a small increase in temperature? Then nature decide otherwise and cause an urelated change in the climate? Also, a warmer world would'n be better than a colder world?




top topics



 
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join