General Climate Discussion

[Angus]

Lazs. to show some consistency you should ask "what global warming".
Or does that only occur on those days of the month?

[TwentyFo]

Ok...700+ replies later I think we solved this problem. Whats next?

[Holden McGroin]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.

Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water. Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.

Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by MORAY37
Everything you just said is of your own conjecture.

70% of the Earth's surface is an evaporation pond:  Not conjecture... as a marine biologist Iwould think you knew of the size of the Earth's oceans.

Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water:  This is a science called psychrometrics, the study of the phenomemon of humidity. As a professional Mechanical Engineer, I am familiar with this, and use it pretty much daily in my job.

More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation: With more water in the air, when the air cools, cloud formation will occur, and precipitation will follow.

Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow:
MORAYSnow isn't water? Last time I checked it was. We haven't yet had methane snow.
When the air column is above the temperature that can cause freezing, the precipitation will occur as liquid, not solid. Usually, global warming is thought to raise the global temperature, hence the term 'warming'.

Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation:  This is simple logic.  Once the global balance point is achieved, what goes up must come down.

My conjecture is something called logic and physics.

[lazs2]

angus...  did you watch the vid that sabre linked.. It is Dr Carter and it pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing after looking at it over the years.  I really would like to hear what you have to say about it.

I just fail to see any convincing evidence by the alarmists.. it seems that every time they get caught in some huge lie it makes me even more disgusted with the whole thing.

I don't see any thing to get shook up about except that maybe we are going to enter into a global cooling period and that my friend... is real trouble.  The only other thing I see to get scared of is the "solutions" by the greenies and priests.

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
moray.. not really an answer..or.. to be fair, perhaps I was not clear.

Do you think that man made co2 is the major cause of the warming trend we are in?   do you think that reducing mans contribution by as much as 30%.. an almost unobtainable goal... would have any effect at all on global climate?

The solar model has only been "refuted" in that so far.. we know little about it.. we do know that always in the past.. it leads climate change... less activity.. the global temp drops.. more.. it rises.. it did that... the activity increased and the temp did too.    

By that reasoning.. co2 has nothing to do with anything... it has NEVER led climate change but... now the priests tell us "but everything is different now.. it now leads climate change....everything that happened in the past does not apply"



lazs

Yes for the thousandth time.  I said yes.  CO2 is the main contributor. at this point, in climate change. Are you getting more dense by the post?

The question you must ask yourself about CO2 leading the change is this:  Maybe the temperature, in this case, is lagging the CO2, due to the rapidity that the CO2 has been dumped into the system.  In all other past events, CO2 has been gradually increased in measure, to the earth's climate system.  In this case... in 120 years, its been quadrupled.  Maybe that might explain the slight "lag" in your argument.  Think of it as when you put the pedal on that pickup truck you drive to the floor.... there's a lag in the time it takes the gas to convert to energy, a lag which isn't noticeable when you gently push down on the pedal.

Personally, my take on it is this;  When my colleagues that know a hell of alot more than me have pretty much given up, saying we are just about to the point of being just along for the ride now, I will say there's not a whole hell of alot we're going to do to change it.  We can say we're gonna do this and we're gonna do that... but we won't.  Like a kid who says he's gonna mow the lawn... it doesn't get done until the consequences are upon them.  Party it up now, this generation, the collapse is just around the corner... be it from AGW or the pH drop I've already documented... the CO2 thing is going to get our species in a heap of trouble.  I'm glad I won't be around in two or three hundred years to see what our "talk" has gotten us.

I personally feel we're already fracked.  I can't quote a paper on it, but that's an opinion piece anway.  I feel sorry for the generation we will pass this off to... it wasn't all our problem to begin with, but this generation saw the consequence and did nothing...only talked itself into oblivion.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
The question you must ask yourself about CO2 leading the change is this:  Maybe the temperature, in this case, is lagging the CO2, due to the rapidity that the CO2 has been dumped into the system.  In all other past events, CO2 has been gradually increased in measure, to the earth's climate system.  In this case... in 120 years, its been quadrupled.

Hate to keep doing this to ya buddy, but...

Real Climate
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned.

380 / 280 does not equal 4

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.

Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water. Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.

Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

70% of the Earth's surface is an evaporation pond:  Not conjecture... as a marine biologist Iwould think you knew of the size of the Earth's oceans.

Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water:  This is a science called psychrometrics, the study of the phenomemon of humidity. As a professional Mechanical Engineer, I am familiar with this, and use it pretty much daily in my job.

More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation: With more water in the air, when the air cools, cloud formation will occur, and precipitation will follow.

Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow:
MORAYSnow isn't water? Last time I checked it was. We haven't yet had methane snow.
When the air column is above the temperature that can cause freezing, the precipitation will occur as liquid, not solid. Usually, global warming is thought to raise the global temperature, hence the term 'warming'.

Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation:  This is simple logic.  Once the global balance point is achieved, what goes up must come down.

My conjecture is something called logic and physics.

Seriously Holden... what is your problem?  You've been a dk about things from your first post.  Whatever problem you have with me, it's amusing.  Keep up the good work, Sir Engineer.

If you're any kind of engineer, then you know that the state of WATER(H2O) means everything.  ALL PRECIP on this planet is H2O, state dependant.  Whence, in your reply, you restated the solid/liquid state phase, you should re-read your original post and see THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

Of course warm air holds more water.... it also doesn't like to RELEASE said water quickly...unless it is cooled.

Transpiration, resulted by climate change, will not turn everything on this planet a lush green....at least not for the first million or so years, as evidenced by the last big climate shift.  It will result in greater aridity in the middle and lower latitudes as the water gets shuffled to the higher latitudes.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
If you're any kind of engineer, then you know that the state of WATER(H2O) means everything.  

So next time I order scotch on the rocks and get scotch and water, according to you I have no complaint...

You took exception to a colloquialism that we call the liquid phase water and the solid phase is called ice and snow.  I am embarrased that I made this horrible mistake.

Transpiration, resulted by climate change, will not turn everything on this planet a lush green....at least not for the first million or so years, as evidenced by the last big climate shift. It will result in greater aridity in the middle and lower latitudes as the water gets shuffled to the higher latitudes.

And when the water gets shifted to the higher latitudes, has it left the globe?  Or when it falls as H2O in whatever form is it counted toward the global rainfall total?

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So next time I order scotch on the rocks and get scotch and water, according to you I have no complaint...

 

How does ordering a drink have anything to do with science?

"on the rocks" ...

Not a term used in science, sir.  Maybe some of you engineering types...when your bridges come tumbling down...might use it.


And to answer...

Chemistry wise, it's the same thing.  Physical state is the only difference.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So next time I order scotch on the rocks and get scotch and water, according to you I have no complaint...

You took exception to a colloquialism that we call the liquid phase water and the solid phase is called ice and snow.  I am embarrased that I made this horrible mistake.

 

And when the water gets shifted to the higher latitudes, has it left the globe?  Or when it falls as H2O in whatever form is it counted toward the global rainfall total?

Of course it hasn't left the globe...BUT IT HAS LEFT A GEOGRAPHICAL REGION.  (where it once fell, but now, due to transpiration and the shift in weather patterns, IT DOES NOT)  

Inititially, water will be redistibuted, and models are predicting, at least in the United States, that you better live on the west coast, or you're gonna be losing out on the H20.  (those BIG mountains in the west, the rockies, BLOCK moisture)

[Angus]

Hehe, was going to say that. As well as the winds will be hotter once over the bumps
Even hotter...

[lazs2]

so when do these models predict all this disaster?  next year?  5 years?

Oh wait.. let me guess... 20 years or more down the road...

By then we will be in a cooling trend that they will claim will freeze us all in solid block of ice by 2100.

I suggest everyone watch the video of dr carter that sabre linked...  especially if you think we are in a catastrophic or even unusual period of climate.

The expression "there is nothing you can do about the weather" is still as true as ever.

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
so when do these models predict all this disaster?  next year?  5 years?

Oh wait.. let me guess... 20 years or more down the road...

By then we will be in a cooling trend that they will claim will freeze us all in solid block of ice by 2100.

I suggest everyone watch the video of dr carter that sabre linked...  especially if you think we are in a catastrophic or even unusual period of climate.

The expression "there is nothing you can do about the weather" is still as true as ever.

lazs

Lazs, the fact that you lack the interpretive ability to disect data could be considered "cute" in some circles.   This isn't one of them.

When parts of the globe which have had ice covering them for TEN THOUSAND years are suddenly ice free in 25 years... You know you have a problem, and it isn't natural.  "Natural" doesn't happen quick,  a fact that is lost upon you, sir.  Even after the Cretaceous event, dinosaurs held on for a few thousand years... and a rock a few miles wide hit the planet.  Change happens slowly, by our standards.

[lazs2]

did you watch the carter vid?   there have been periods of radical change in the past.. the only thing about the weather that is constant is that it changes.

Are you going to tell dr carter that he lacks your grasp of science?   watch the video and tell me what you think of it.

His charts and graphs look a lot different than the ones I have seen here.

Sooo is he a liar?   Is he wrong? we have seen the alarmists be wrong time after time..

How do you know we won't enter a cooling period?    We always have before.

You don't seem to buy into the "man made co2 is causing catastrophic warming" theory.. so what is causing it?   The math doesn't add up on Co2.. we have had most of a doubling and it simply isn't doing what they said it would.

We aren't going to have 30' rises in sea level in 20 years.. In fact.. according to dr carter.. we are in about a normal sea rise...nothing unusual.

Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that they aren't using these models to predict next year or five years?

lazs

[Angus]

Not to mention when an icecovered sea which has been so for millions of years goes freebee in 100 years...

Actually, from practical experience, I've always been baffled with how much energy you need to thaw something that just "froze" overnight.

Some should check their brain for that