Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

[loosecannon]

water does not give up ITS heat easily, but it does heat other shit easily.

Those two statements mean the exact same thing

You can't give up your heat without heating something else. Even if that something else is only infrared photons it is still and always will be something else. Conservation of energy.

I get that far into your posts and I just stop reading because it is nonsense.

I don't even know what your point is, how does this effect global warming and what exactly are you trying to assert as water's role in warming that makes a difference?

 

[loosecannon]

maybe the misunderstanding is on your part. i think you are confused about the significance of water's high latent and sensitive heat. this is the point that i have been harping on with respect to water's 'leverage' over other materials. check out these terms; holla back.

I know what latent heat in water is, I described it to you several pages ago, but I can't find any web reference to sensitive heat.

Regardless of that I can't figure out what your point is regarding warming because you keep changing your assertions.

i'm a drunkass. sensible heat not sensitive. here: Sensible heat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

understand that and you will understand that my assertions are consistent.

OK I read it, sensible heat and latent heat are both heat transfers I had already discussed.

I am familiar with this shit because I used to design and build vacuum kilns so I have considerable practical experience dealing with issues surrounding the heating and vaporizing of water.

Again please articulate your actual point in a straightforward manner.

 

[westwall]

Yes you certainly "win" if you think dying is relaxing. Epic fail dood, epic fail.

You are not following the thread.

My point was that sticking your arm into a 212 degree oven wouldn't phase you. Whereas sticking your hand into 212 degree water would almost immediately peel the skin off your arm.

I win, thanks for playing.

I believe this was your quote...

"I just posted a link asserting that sitting in a 212 degree sauna is leisurely and relaxing."


I pointed out that sitting in a 212 degree sauna is extremely dangerous, in fact it was fatal,
Learn how to play your own game some day. Until then nice fail try again.

 

[antagon]

my point is that there is measurable warming in sea temperatures which i feel are responsible for atmospheric warming. prior to the CO2 craze, the strengthening el nino effect was broadly considered the impetus of global warming. ocean water temps jumped up in the mid/late 70s and the atmospheric temps followed.

the logic which old rocks and the typical global warming scientist puts forward is not plausible because the attribution to CO2 is not realistic. here's how:

the warming is effected at sea surface temps. the thermodynamic advantage of water to air makes the idea that air temps increased at the levels recorded could heat the sea to near equilibrium as instantaneously as indicated seem far fetched. this is where sensible heat advantage comes into play. water can quite easily effect this equilibrium where air cannot. water has the sensible heat advantage with respect to absorbing more energy from the sun and effecting equilibrium vs air. it also has the evaporation mechanism which relies on a ratio of latent and sensible heat. this has a substantial net atmospheric warming effect.

water vapor is the dominant GhG. nobody can deny this. quantitatively and qualitatively the most abundant and effective of the GhGs before even accounting for clouds. this is the atmospheric vector for heat absorbed by water as discussed.

the forcing/feedback argument is BS. we've explored that air is not contributing significantly to the sea temps. it is not plausible as above. CO2 is not forcing higher levels of H2O vapor. the argument about residence times of these substances is inane. the enthalpy/enthropy cycle of water is an atmospheric heating mechanism. arguably atmospheric heating would increase with an increase in this frequency - a shorter WV residence time. i see these as illogical frame-ups of CO2 which don't add up scientifically.

something else is responsible for warming the atmosphere. there is no doubt whatsoever that something is water. the mystery is how the ocean has changed in the last 30 years or so whereby surface temps are higher than before. we dont understand what el nino is completely. we cant account for the loss of glacial and polar cooling and the knockon of these effects. there is a predilection with CO2 for obvious reasons, but which are external to the facts available. the bottom line is global warming wont be the end of the world so i think folks would rather make a living off of it than crank up the AC and circumnavigate the northern oceans. if it is going to be looked at seriously and scientifically the focus on CO2 is not credible.

that's where i'm coming from.

 

[antagon]

water does not give up ITS heat easily, but it does heat other shit easily.

Those two statements mean the exact same thing

how about 'water does not give up its temperature easily, but it does increase the temperature of other shit easily.'

that's more like it.

 

[loosecannon]

Yes you certainly "win" if you think dying is relaxing. Epic fail dood, epic fail.

You are not following the thread.

My point was that sticking your arm into a 212 degree oven wouldn't phase you. Whereas sticking your hand into 212 degree water would almost immediately peel the skin off your arm.

I win, thanks for playing.

I believe this was your quote...

"I just posted a link asserting that sitting in a 212 degree sauna is leisurely and relaxing."


I pointed out that sitting in a 212 degree sauna is extremely dangerous, in fact it was fatal,
Learn how to play your own game some day. Until then nice fail try again.

I did post a link stating that sitting in a 212 degree sauna was leisurely and relaxing, but I wasn't relying on that being strictly true to support my point.

My point was that you can stick your arm into a 212 degree oven and it just won't hurt you at all. But stick your arm in boiling water and you will scream first, seek medical attention second.

 

[loosecannon]

water does not give up ITS heat easily, but it does heat other shit easily.

Those two statements mean the exact same thing

how about 'water does not give up its temperature easily, but it does increase the temperature of other shit easily.'

that's more like it.

But it still isn't true! Water gives up heat exactly as easily as it obsorbs it which is abundantly obvious via the two thought experiments I provided you with. A) sticking your hand into hot water will cause the water to give up more of it's heat than air or aluminum, or steel, or copper, three of which are denser than water.

I covered both your latent heat and sensible heat transfer methods succinctly in my opening post and I was accurate on both counts.

 

[loosecannon]

my point is that there is measurable warming in sea temperatures which i feel are responsible for atmospheric warming. prior to the CO2 craze, the strengthening el nino effect was broadly considered the impetus of global warming. ocean water temps jumped up in the mid/late 70s and the atmospheric temps followed.

First off we have nowhere near enough data covering aggregate sea temps to make such an observation.

The adage that we know more about deep space than deep sea is largely true.

the logic which old rocks and the typical global warming scientist puts forward is not plausible because the attribution to CO2 is not realistic. here's how:

the warming is effected at sea surface temps. the thermodynamic advantage of water to air makes the idea that air temps increased at the levels recorded could heat the sea to near equilibrium as instantaneously as indicated seem far fetched.

while this is abundantly obvious if you had accurate data and were measuring the ocean temps at all depths it is complete conjecture if you are relying on surface temps.


For example in 2005 surface temps in the gulf were off the fucking charts with mean temps for the top 5 feet of water nearly 5 degrees above normal.

The cause of this was that the upper Mississippi valley had a combination of super warm weather coupled with super low rainfall, the result of course was a much warmer off shore flow from the river and Katrina.

this is where sensible heat advantage comes into play. water can quite easily effect this equilibrium where air cannot. water has the sensible heat advantage with respect to absorbing more energy from the sun and effecting equilibrium vs air. it also has the evaporation mechanism which relies on a ratio of latent and sensible heat. this has a substantial net atmospheric warming effect.

Altho I think this is 40% fiction I still say "so what?". If the air heats the ocean or the ocean heats the air, what is the difference? They are in fact so intertwined as to be nearly indistinguishable. I streamlined a whole lot of my previous commentary because the complexity of the relationship between air temps, water temps and the cycle of water make it impossible to separate one driver from another.

water vapor is the dominant GhG. nobody can deny this. quantitatively and qualitatively the most abundant and effective of the GhGs before even accounting for clouds. this is the atmospheric vector for heat absorbed by water as discussed.

on that much we agree except the distinction you make eliminating clouds from the equation undermines your very statement. Clouds are significant players in the GHG effect of water vapor. Operative word being vapor.

the forcing/feedback argument is BS. we've explored that air is not contributing significantly to the sea temps.

Explored it and found it to be unknowable, unprovable and inconclusive. Air insulates the entirety of the earth it's effect on global climate is surely much higher than that of water that isn't integrated into the atmosphere as vapor.

it is not plausible as above. CO2 is not forcing higher levels of H2O vapor.

Do you actually know that? I ask because higher atmospheric temps by definition require that the atmosphere be ladened with more water vapor. This is mainstream kiln science. Water vapor is a direct function of temperature and the availability of water to vaporize. If water is available the RH is a direct function of temperature.

the argument about residence times of these substances is inane.

can't possibly agree.

the enthalpy/enthropy cycle of water is an atmospheric heating mechanism. arguably atmospheric heating would increase with an increase in this frequency - a shorter WV residence time. i see these as illogical frame-ups of CO2 which don't add up scientifically.

something else is responsible for warming the atmosphere. there is no doubt whatsoever that something is water.

as if water has somehow changed and is ever changing ever since 1998, 1971, 2005. Right!

the mystery is how the ocean has changed in the last 30 years or so whereby surface temps are higher than before. we dont understand what el nino is completely. we cant account for the loss of glacial and polar cooling and the knockon of these effects. there is a predilection with CO2 for obvious reasons, but which are external to the facts available. the bottom line is global warming wont be the end of the world so i think folks would rather make a living off of it than crank up the AC and circumnavigate the northern oceans. if it is going to be looked at seriously and scientifically the focus on CO2 is not credible.

that's where i'm coming from.

OK while we don't understand el nino and the warming of the oceans surface, well we don't. We just don't understand it and we don't have the data to understand it.

Which is probably where most of your thinking went awry.

Meanwhile it is a nearly certifiable fact that CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas, that it has been steadily increasing and that past correlations of CO2 and warmer temps are abundant.

It is also well established that there are other drivers for warming besides energy inputs. For example the alignment of N and S America dividing the world from pole to pole and the presence of a continent straddling a pole (like Antarctica) have also proven to be agents that facilitate warming because they prevent the oceans from distributing the world's heat evenly.

And as water warms it's ability to transfer massive, massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere increases exponentially.

If there is anything water does well it is to surrender it's heat and retain heat readily.

 

[loosecannon]

I might add that whatever GHG effect CO2 has is multiplied by it's effect on increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere.

 

[antagon]

Those two statements mean the exact same thing

how about 'water does not give up its temperature easily, but it does increase the temperature of other shit easily.'

that's more like it.

But it still isn't true! Water gives up heat exactly as easily as it obsorbs it which is abundantly obvious via the two thought experiments I provided you with. A) sticking your hand into hot water will cause the water to give up more of it's heat than air or aluminum, or steel, or copper, three of which are denser than water.

I covered both your latent heat and sensible heat transfer methods succinctly in my opening post and I was accurate on both counts.

...but less of its temperature. despite those being solids, water has higher volumetric specific heat capacity.

 

[loosecannon]

how about 'water does not give up its temperature easily, but it does increase the temperature of other shit easily.'

that's more like it.

But it still isn't true! Water gives up heat exactly as easily as it obsorbs it which is abundantly obvious via the two thought experiments I provided you with. A) sticking your hand into hot water will cause the water to give up more of it's heat than air or aluminum, or steel, or copper, three of which are denser than water.

I covered both your latent heat and sensible heat transfer methods succinctly in my opening post and I was accurate on both counts.

...but less of its temperature. despite those being solids, water has higher volumetric specific heat capacity.

Exactly, water gives up MORE heat and temperature than do denser solids!

I assume that you are aware of the fact that water absorbs heat on a linear scale until it reaches boiling temps and then it simply absorbs more and more energy without boiling until it has absorbed nearly twice as much energy as it took to raise it to 211 degrees?

Then it boils and steals that heat in the form of a phase change. Only to release that heat when it recondenses.

So any discussion of "higher volumetric specific heat capacity" needs to be framed within a specific temp range otherwise it is likely to be as much as 50% -100% inaccurate.

 

[loosecannon]

Here you go, antagon:

Thermal conductivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

water gives up it's heat 24 times better than does air. Which is why 212 degree air won't phase you but boiling water will scald you.

 

[antagon]

my point is that there is measurable warming in sea temperatures which i feel are responsible for atmospheric warming. prior to the CO2 craze, the strengthening el nino effect was broadly considered the impetus of global warming. ocean water temps jumped up in the mid/late 70s and the atmospheric temps followed.

First off we have nowhere near enough data covering aggregate sea temps to make such an observation.

The adage that we know more about deep space than deep sea is largely true.

working with what we know, some of the very bases for the idea that the planet is warming in the first place, we can tell that the sea surface has warmed through consistent satellite and surface measurement over the time that i've referenced. what is insufficient about these measurements which makes you feel conclusions drawn from it are not credible?

the logic which old rocks and the typical global warming scientist puts forward is not plausible because the attribution to CO2 is not realistic. here's how:

the warming is effected at sea surface temps. the thermodynamic advantage of water to air makes the idea that air temps increased at the levels recorded could heat the sea to near equilibrium as instantaneously as indicated seem far fetched.

while this is abundantly obvious if you had accurate data and were measuring the ocean temps at all depths it is complete conjecture if you are relying on surface temps.


For example in 2005 surface temps in the gulf were off the fucking charts with mean temps for the top 5 feet of water nearly 5 degrees above normal.

The cause of this was that the upper Mississippi valley had a combination of super warm weather coupled with super low rainfall, the result of course was a much warmer off shore flow from the river and Katrina.

do you have a link for this? i think it is pretty wild that offshore flow would warm the entire gulf of mexico, but i'm willing to read up on it.

If the air heats the ocean or the ocean heats the air, what is the difference?

if the air heats the water, maybe this CO2 shit is more plausible than i give it credit. if not, then why (scientifically, not politically) is the bulk of the financing and focus pouring into the CO2 issue? this is the essential question i'm asking.

water vapor is the dominant GhG. nobody can deny this. quantitatively and qualitatively the most abundant and effective of the GhGs before even accounting for clouds. this is the atmospheric vector for heat absorbed by water as discussed.

on that much we agree except the distinction you make eliminating clouds from the equation undermines your very statement. Clouds are significant players in the GHG effect of water vapor. Operative word being vapor.

clouds would be above and beyond the extent that WV acts in the atmosphere. the role of clouds is more dynamic than to attribute simpler implications like those others i mention off the cuff.

the forcing/feedback argument is BS. we've explored that air is not contributing significantly to the sea temps.

Explored it and found it to be unknowable, unprovable and inconclusive. Air insulates the entirety of the earth it's effect on global climate is surely much higher than that of water that isn't integrated into the atmosphere as vapor.

several pages back i invited you among others to explain what i would describe as new and magical thermodynamics which makes this basic assertion inconclusive. can you explain how you think this interaction works and how you would propose that atmosphere is able to warm the sea? certainly you could appreciate that unknowable is equally unsupportive of the CO2-based theory. i find it to be fundamental facts of nature of which you've not expressed an understanding of. if you respond to anything, please explain CO2 forcing by showing that gasses in the atmosphere effect the heating and evaporation of water. you falsely claim that solar radiation contains gamma rays(!), and fail to acknowledge that the sun is the biggest contributor to the earth's energy budget(!!!). these are major handicaps in such a discussion as this, but i submit that direct sunlight is the major source of sea water heating.

This is mainstream kiln science.

so long as that abides with what core sciences know about heat, that's great. its not clear that this is the case, though. certainly you can appreciate that a kiln is effecting both evaporation and the maintenance of the vapor state from a persistent source of heat. this is the heat of the sun on planet earth by orders of magnitude. atmospheric temps maintain the vapor state, but i argue that these temps are in turn maintained by the sun, primarily through water vapor as well.

 

[antagon]

Here you go, antagon:

Thermal conductivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

water gives up it's heat 24 times better than does air. Which is why 212 degree air won't phase you but boiling water will scald you.

i'm familiar with all of this in painful detail being a chemical engineer and all. do you really get sensible heating and the relative nature of temperature and heat of a substance? that 212* (temperature) of air is about 1:1000 the quantity of heat which water has at the same temperature?

 

[antagon]

But it still isn't true! Water gives up heat exactly as easily as it obsorbs it which is abundantly obvious via the two thought experiments I provided you with. A) sticking your hand into hot water will cause the water to give up more of it's heat than air or aluminum, or steel, or copper, three of which are denser than water.

I covered both your latent heat and sensible heat transfer methods succinctly in my opening post and I was accurate on both counts.

...but less of its temperature. despite those being solids, water has higher volumetric specific heat capacity.

Exactly, water gives up MORE heat and temperature than do denser solids!

read up on sensible heat, AGAIN. water gives up more heat BUT (and because) it is more resistant to temperature change (giving up temperature) than nearly any other substance.

the variation of water's volumetric heat capacity is very low because the liquid phase hydrogen bonds are near analogs of the molecular hydrogen bonds. latent heat does not work the way you propose: 'steals the heat' - this means that you are measuring less water if you are not including the vapor phase water as well. measured together the heat, latent and all, is conserved. steam is hot.

 

[antagon]

OK while we don't understand el nino and the warming of the oceans surface, well we don't. We just don't understand it and we don't have the data to understand it.

Which is probably where most of your thinking went awry.

Meanwhile it is a nearly certifiable fact that CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas, that it has been steadily increasing and that past correlations of CO2 and warmer temps are abundant.

this sums up the state of the art right there. can't account for the plausible issue, so make an implausible economically exploitable reason fit... at all costs!

 

[asterism]

OK while we don't understand el nino and the warming of the oceans surface, well we don't. We just don't understand it and we don't have the data to understand it.

Which is probably where most of your thinking went awry.

Meanwhile it is a nearly certifiable fact that CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas, that it has been steadily increasing and that past correlations of CO2 and warmer temps are abundant.

this sums up the state of the art right there. can't account for the plausible issue, so make an implausible economically exploitable reason fit... at all costs!

Isn't that the same position postulated by AGW advocates that say, "If it's not CO2 then what is it?" followed by another hockey-stick chart?

By the way, does the corrected Vostok core chart directly chart CO2 with average measured temperature?

 

[antagon]

i dunno. loosecannon posted this earlier himself. i am not impressed with the abundance of correlation. not even with my eyes crossed and head tilted.

 

[Big Fitz]

i dunno. loosecannon posted this earlier himself. i am not impressed with the abundance of correlation. not even with my eyes crossed and head tilted.

Sure as hell disproves causation, to hell with correlation.

 

[loosecannon]

i dunno. loosecannon posted this earlier himself. i am not impressed with the abundance of correlation. not even with my eyes crossed and head tilted.

I am. I did notice in the chart tho how there is apparently a kind of ceiling on how warm the atmosphere can become.