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.

 

Global temperatures COOLER now than when Gore won Nobel Prize in 2007

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
NASA disagrees. Take a look at their graph.


The thing my eyes are drawn to at that link are the words "scientific consensus'. There is no such thing and it invalidates the entire page. Do not bother with it.




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet

I'm not sure why you keep saying the atmosphere cannot accept any more water vapor, 100% humidity is associated with constant rain. Maybe you are thinking of something else, please post a reference next time.


It's based on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. It allows an assessment of the water capacity of the atmosphere.

The effect of irrigation? ...


Irrigation induced surface cooling in the context of modern
and increased greenhouse gas forcing

Benjamin I. Cook

Michael J. Puma

Nir Y. Krakauer

Abstract

There is evidence that expected warming trends
from increased greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing have been
locally ‘masked’ by irrigation induced cooling, and it is
uncertain how the magnitude of this irrigation masking
effect will change in the future. Using an irrigation dataset
integrated into a global general circulation model, we
investigate the equilibrium magnitude of irrigation induced
cooling under modern (Year 2000) and increased (A1B
Scenario, Year 2050) GHG forcing, using modern irriga-
tion rates in both scenarios. For the modern scenario, the
cooling is largest over North America, India, the Middle
East, and East Asia. Under increased GHG forcing, this
cooling effect largely disappears over North America,
remains relatively unchanged over India, and intensifies
over parts of China and the Middle East. For North
America, irrigation significantly increases precipitation
under modern GHG forcing; this precipitation enhance-
ment largely disappears under A1B forcing, reducing total
latent heat fluxes and the overall irrigation cooling effect.
Over India, irrigation rates are high enough to keep pace
with increased evaporative demand from the increased
GHG forcing and the magnitude of the cooling is main-
tained. Over China, GHG forcing reduces precipitation and
shifts the region to a drier evaporative regime, leading to a
relatively increased impact of additional water from irri-
gation on the surface energy balance. Irrigation enhances
precipitation in the Middle East under increased GHG
forcing, increasing total latent heat fluxes and enhancing
the irrigation cooling effect. Ultimately, the extent to which
irrigation will continue to compensate for the warming
from increased GHG forcing will primarily depend on
changes in the background evaporative regime, secondary
irrigation effects (e.g. clouds, precipitation), and the ability
of societies to maintain (or increase) current irrigation
rates.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Cooling.

Cheers (:



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   
In the last week around where i live the daily temperatures have been in the high 90s.
In the next 5 days they are predicting 100 to 102.

Normal high is 109 to 112.
www.areavibes.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: growler

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: redtic

Actually it does look natural. Today it is 73 degrees in my neck of the woods. Tomorrow it will be almost 90.

1934 is the hottest year in recorded history, that would also spike a graph is scaled correctly.


Thanks for your input. This is very enlightening as to the uphill climb we face.


it's very much akin to the tobacco industry claiming smoking doesn't cause cancer, these oil companies blowing billions on denial missions yet only finding support from non science types crackpots but they sure love shouting loudest.

That's because it is the same exact people.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation does not determine the amount of humidity in our atmosphere.

The only implication of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is that a warmer climate will have a higher maximum humidity. (Clouds will get bigger.)

I've seen the paper you quoted and one other that claims evaporation cancels out the GHE of water vapor. If you believe that, then water is not a GHG. A man made puddle follows the same water cycle as a natural puddle. There is no permanent baseline atmospheric moisture. All water vapor in the atmosphere goes through the water cycle.

All water vapor has to evaporate before it can spend 10 days as a GHG.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What do you think about past temperatures being changed?



Or, only look at weather stations that followed the same procedures as today and have no legitimate reason to be altered.




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

Where did you get those graphs from?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: melatonin

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation does not determine the amount of humidity in our atmosphere.

The only implication of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is that a warmer climate will have a higher maximum humidity. (Clouds will get bigger.)


No. It determines the saturation vapour pressure. This is where water vapour becomes liquid water. As temp increases so does saturation point (it is a function of temperature), this allows more water vapour in the atmosphere without saturation.

Not rocket surgery.


I've seen the paper you quoted and one other that claims evaporation cancels out the GHE of water vapor. If you believe that, then water is not a GHG. A man made puddle follows the same water cycle as a natural puddle. There is no permanent baseline atmospheric moisture. All water vapor in the atmosphere goes through the water cycle.


So you say paper is bull# because puddles. lol.

Don't take it the wrong way if I chuckle and ignore your poor reasoning.


All water vapor has to evaporate before it can spend 10 days as a GHG.


Again, a poor attempt at skirting the issue.

Evaporation requires energy. It's not magic. It takes this energy from the surrounding environment.

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet

a reply to: melatonin




If we are talking irrigation, why would it predominately lead to a GHG effect? Why not cooling via evaporation?



You would need to compare the amount of initial cooling to GHG heating over the ten day average water cycle for a typical water molecule.

AGW theory says that increased humidity will cause additional warming. AGW humidity obeys the same water cycle, including evaporation. Irrigation is estimated to add 5% to global average humidity,


Throughout the atmosphere, or locally at ground level? Data for that?


so we should be able to see the same effects without waiting for AGW.


The oceans are much larger and have much more heat capacity. AGW is driving from long-lived greenhouse gases, and the water vapor is a short-term response. The point is that a warmer atmosphere can hold more absolute humidity (this is physical fact) and that humidity is also a greenhouse gas. The gating factor there is the temperature driven by long lived gases, not the availability of water---there is 70% of the surface entirely water, so there's much more water available globally than necessary to fulfill all thermodynamic necessities. It's not limited by water molecules! Therefore, if humans take water from one place to another that doesn't globally make a huge difference physically though it could affect local surface measurements in various ways confusing the issue. As a hypothetical alternative: if we were on a planet with a totally dry surface, and we exposed substantial formerly underground fossil water to the 100% dry atmosphere, and water evaporated, then that would definitely contribute to warming from secularly increasing greenhouse effect. That's sort of what we're doing with petroleum & CO2 (except there was already some CO2 there originally) .

In a nutshell: greenhouse effect of H2O and CO2 are determined by their absolute concentration, i.e. absolute (not relative) humidity for water.
Earth's atmosphere is not limited by availability of H2O molecules, there's plenty available in ocean. By contrast, it is limited by availability of CO2, NH4, etc. Human emissions of H2O have no long-term secular global significant effect on total global humidity, (local can matter). Human emissions of other molecules do have a secular effect on their concentration: we measure it.
edit on 17-8-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

OP is confused: water vapor is evaporated water by definition.

Clouds can have both pro and anti-warming effects. Vapor is as far as I know, only pro warming.
edit on 17-8-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Remember that scientists are talking about average global temps over the long term and that temps some years will be hotter or cooler than others.

I can also tell you that global warming can cause cooling in some areas due to sea temperature change, changes in ocean currents and changes in the jet stream etc. That's why some of these last few new england winters have been so cold.

Come to Vegas and I'll show you how some areas keep gettign hotter year after year though. Just so you don't think that the whole world is cold right now. LOL



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: melatonin

OP is confused: water vapor is evaporated water by definition.

Clouds can have both pro and anti-warming effects. Vapor is as far as I know, only pro warming.


Tell me about it D:

Just ignored and handled from irrigation angle - seems to be their bugbear :/

But, as usual, might as well shout at the wind, lol.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I agree that irrigation has no long term effect on humidity levels. But as long as we keep pumping trillions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere, we will experience the effects, positive or negative. If we stop irrigation for a couple weeks, that water vapor will rain out of the atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: melatonin


Clouds can have both pro and anti-warming effects. Vapor is as far as I know, only pro warming.

Yes clouds are formed mostly by water vapor which can both have warming or cooling effect.
On short term it will act as a warming insulator trapping the heat that escapes from the ground, on long term however it will eventually cool the earth as little heat from the sun can get through.
That's why I believe if we see an increase in cloud coverage over the years, we might start getting worried on a global cooling effect.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

I am saying a warmer climate will have a higher maximum humidity.
You are saying a warmer climate allows more water vapour in the atmosphere without saturation.

That is literally that exact same thing.

I'm trying to explain this as simply as possible.

Let's say you have a glass that keeps filling with water and dumping out. That represents water in our atmosphere.

A) Increased irrigation means that the glass will be filling faster and dumping more often.

B) Increased temperature means that the glass will be a bit larger (Clausius-Clayperon equation) and increased temperature will also fill the glass faster. Basically just a larger version of the original scenario.

Both situations have the same increase of water input and water output. Both depend on the same amount of evaporation, with resulting GHE and increased cloud cover (condensation).



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: mbkennel

I agree that irrigation has no long term effect on humidity levels. But as long as we keep pumping trillions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere, we will experience the effects, positive or negative. If we stop irrigation for a couple weeks, that water vapor will rain out of the atmosphere.


We don't 'pump trillions of tons of water vapor' unless we are massively heating the air, which we aren't. We expose more air to surface water. So it's like the oceans growing from 70% of surface to 73% (made up numbers) roughly.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: melatonin

I am saying a warmer climate will have a higher maximum humidity.
You are saying a warmer climate allows more water vapour in the atmosphere without saturation.

That is literally that exact same thing.

I'm trying to explain this as simply as possible.

Let's say you have a glass that keeps filling with water and dumping out. That represents water in our atmosphere.

A) Increased irrigation means that the glass will be filling faster and dumping more often.


This is not clear.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: mbkennel

I agree that irrigation has no long term effect on humidity levels. But as long as we keep pumping trillions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere, we will experience the effects, positive or negative. If we stop irrigation for a couple weeks, that water vapor will rain out of the atmosphere.


Most irrigation (the more important larger farming operations) seasons last only in terms of several months and almost all irrigation does stop for more than a couple weeks around september, usually several months in fact until spring returns.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
NASA disagrees. Take a look at their graph.


The thing my eyes are drawn to at that link are the words "scientific consensus'. There is no such thing and it invalidates the entire page. Do not bother with it.


I am sorry to burst your neat echo bubble, but you are wrong. There most certainly is scientific consensus.

'Consensus' is NOT the same thing as 'unanimous'. Of course there are a few naysayers, and the most scientifically honest of them have continued their researches and have come to agree with the consensus in the last couple of years.

The remaining are non-specialists talking outside their expertise and using their ability to sound authoritative to enhance their own notoriety at the expense of their scientific soul. Never the less, they do have views that need to be understood.

I repeat however: 'consensus' and 'unanimity' are not the same thing. Scientific consensus on the matter is fact.

A few naysayers do not a consensus unmake. The consensus is real, and it is overwhelming.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join