Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm curious about something. FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate. As Vitamin D? In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers? In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate? How?
I'm curious about something. FCT spent a great deal of time arguing that the relationship between TSI and global temperature was likely complex and non-linear with significant and apparently variable delays. I'm just curious where and how the Earth can store the energy from sunlight without raising the temperature of SOME component of our climate. As Vitamin D? In all the world's Crooke's Radiometers? In massive mountaintop deposits of phosphorescent strontium aluminate? How?
argumentum ad ignorantiam?
first things first. we need to know what level of TSI is neutral. the 20th century was a maximum for TSI as far as we can tell from the short history of solar observation.
second- highly ordered shortwave from the sun is capable of doing work. disordered, low energy longwave from backradiation is not.
You know that statement is false. Coherent radiation has greater capacity to do work that does incoherent radiation (on an energy equivalent basis), but it is incorrect to say that re-radiated IR has no capacity to do work.
sunshine powers the ocean and atmospheric currents.
As does reradiated infrared.
how much energy (converted to temperature equivalents) are there in a one micrometer per second increase of the Gulf Stream? a one millimetre per second increase in Hadley Cell overturning? the majority of energy comes in through the tropics but the majority of energy leaves elsewhere.
And the first non-solar manifestation of that energy - before any velocity increase in the Gulf Stream, before any effect on Hadley Cells, is INCREASED CLIMATIC TEMPERATURES.
My question stands unanswered.
Now if only you could replace "Green Bay" with "Earth" it might mean something.
Moore stabbed Greenpeace in the back many years ago. His name has been anathema to the environmental movement for decades.
When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.
;-)
The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing. The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.
When one says "The Earth", Frank, it includes the deep Pacific Ocean... several other locations as well.
;-)
The temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere, as a whole, are still increasing. The radiative balance at the ToA makes that unavoidable.
I thought about it and I looked it up and here's what turns out to be the case.
The slower cooling by rising, wet air turns out to be a negative feedback from global warming.
As the world heats up, our computer models tell us that we will see increased evaporation and thus higher average humidity in the atmosphere. Given the way lapse rates actually work, that means warmer air aloft. That means more LW radiation getting out to space than were that warmth to stay low. So there was a measure of correctness in SSDD's position. I should have seen it earlier. Just a few points though.
It first has to get warmer for the humidity to increase and the amount of warm air aloft to increase. This is a feedback mechanism, not a barrier or an independent process. Feedback mechanisms cannot stop their driving processes or make them reverse, they can only mitigate. Per the laws of physics, this can NOT cause water vapor to be a net coolant. And if you want to treat this process as being adiabatic, which it comes quite close to if you're only considering conductive and convective cooling, than it has NO effect on global warming because, by choice, you would NOT concern yourself with any LW radiation or any other means of heat transfer. Just to get this point across, a parcel of air rising through the atmosphere does not require losing thermal energy to its surroundings to cool. It cools because pressure is dropping and the parcel is expanding. In essence, you have to spread the same amount of energy across a larger volume and thus the energy density (ie, the temperature) has to drop.
Physic equations that show co2, water vapor and methane are green house gases
We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.
In that case, your contention concerning lapse rates and warming is completely without merit. Those models' predictions that AGW would lead to increased humidity was the only thing you had going for you.
You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?
majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side. GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario. Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.
We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.
You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?
The majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side. GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario. Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.
I don't understand why you say there is no evidence that man is causing global warming then say that Moore, who has said the exact same thing, is lying. Perhaps you need to clarify what you're trying to say there.
You don't consider the fossil fuel industry a "vested interest"?
Not really since they stand to make money no matter which way the coin falls. If prices increase due to green regulation, they simply pass the cost on to the consumer and as always, the green way hurts those who can least afford it. I can pay 5 or 6 bucks a gallon or more for gas...I won't like it, but I can pay it and continue to drive my 4WD pickup...what happens to the poor folks who can't afford it?
majority of the errors in the predictions of the IPCC have been towards the conservative side. GHG emissions are matching their worst case scenario. Until the hiatus, models the IPCC chose were consistently BELOW observed temperatures.
