Remember me
▼ Content

But how can Global WARMING make some places cooler? Or similarly, droughts AND torrential rains?


But how can Global WARMING make some places cooler? Or similarly, droughts AND torrential rains?09-10-2016 01:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes, reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly. This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them. Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms."

"Common sense" would dictate that a single change would have a single, unidirectional effect, but common sense is often wrong. In such a complex system as the Earth, even such a simple change as "1 degree warmer" can have vast, wide-ranging effects.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 10:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes, reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly. This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them. Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms."

I think you had better get a better understanding of our atmospheric structure. You're going to need it if you want to go into the aerospace industry.

What would cause this part of the atmosphere to warm up and why would it be confined to this part of the atmosphere?

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Common sense" would dictate that a single change would have a single, unidirectional effect, but common sense is often wrong. In such a complex system as the Earth, even such a simple change as "1 degree warmer" can have vast, wide-ranging effects.


Gawd I hope the sun doesn't come up, then.


The Parrot Killer
09-10-2016 14:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
"The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes, reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly. This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them. Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms."

I think you had better get a better understanding of our atmospheric structure. You're going to need it if you want to go into the aerospace industry.

What would cause this part of the atmosphere to warm up and why would it be confined to this part of the atmosphere?


The greenhouse effect, obviously. As for "especially at high latitudes,"

One of the earliest and consistent predictions of global warming theory is that the polar regions would increase in temperature to a far greater degree than the equatorial regions. This prediction is plausible for several reasons. First of all, the polar regions are subject to the ice-albedo feedback; i.e., as sea ice and snow fields melt the ground and open water absorb more of the Sun's radiation. Second, the air of the polar regions is dry, so dry that they are deserts as much as the Sahara is. Being dry the polar air has very little of the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In moister regions carbon dioxide is a relatively small proportion of the greenhouse gases, but in the dry regions it is relatively more important. Thus if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles there is relatively smaller effect in moister regions than in the dryer regions so the temperature effect of the increased carbon dioxide is greater in the dryer regions. But, if the atmosphere in the polar regions warms there will be more evaporation and thus a postive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor.


This is available on the internet.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Common sense" would dictate that a single change would have a single, unidirectional effect, but common sense is often wrong. In such a complex system as the Earth, even such a simple change as "1 degree warmer" can have vast, wide-ranging effects.


Gawd I hope the sun doesn't come up, then.


One degree warmer than it otherwise would have been. Keep in mind that the most recent Ice Age was only 4.5C colder than today. We're 15% of that, in the other direction, and in ~86 years, we'll be one Ice Age Unit warmer than pre-industrial times.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 15:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
jwoodward48 wrote:"The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes,

jwoodward48, help me understand the semantic weaseling going on here. What is meant by warming occurring "especially" at high latitudes? Why is it not especially happening at low latitudes? What is meant by "warming" anyway? Warmizombies specialize in using the vaguest of language so they cannot be pinned down on any semantic whatsoever. If you critique a warmizombie for violating physics then s/he simply says "that's not what was said." Ergo, I'm asking you to get as technical as necessary to explain what is being said.

jwoodward48 wrote:reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly.

Does it cause Santa Clause' reindeer to fly more slowly as well?

jwoodward48 wrote:This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them.

This is entirely believable for those who worship a "Climate" goddess who arbitrarily controls the weather.

jwoodward48 wrote:Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms."

I always love this part. Droughts are exacerbated by increased precipitation.

jwoodward48 wrote:"Common sense" would dictate...

Oh, it's going to get really good now.

jwoodward48 wrote: that a single change would have a single, unidirectional effect,

Yes, that is what happens in physics.

However, if results in nature are based on the arbitrary decisons of unfalsifiable deities, e.g. "Climate," then any "cause" can have any "effect." It's miraculous.

jwoodward48 wrote:but common sense is often wrong. In such a complex system as the Earth, even such a simple change as "1 degree warmer" can have vast, wide-ranging effects.

Of course. It could bring catastrophic doom to the planet, ... presuming hypothetically for a moment that it is happening, ...and presuming it is a result of "Climate" just being so very pissed at humanity for its carbon sins, ... yes, of course one degree could easily equate to certain doom.

...but what a WACKY religion that would have to be.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2016 15:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
jwoodward48 wrote:The greenhouse effect, obviously. As for "especially at high latitudes,"

So everything in the quotation is based on a violation of physics.

jwoodward48 wrote:This is available on the internet.

I'm guessing that all applicable violations of physics are also available on the internet, yes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2016 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
"The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes, reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly. This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them. Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms."

I think you had better get a better understanding of our atmospheric structure. You're going to need it if you want to go into the aerospace industry.

What would cause this part of the atmosphere to warm up and why would it be confined to this part of the atmosphere?


The greenhouse effect, obviously. As for "especially at high latitudes,"

One of the earliest and consistent predictions of global warming theory is that the polar regions would increase in temperature to a far greater degree than the equatorial regions. This prediction is plausible for several reasons. First of all, the polar regions are subject to the ice-albedo feedback; i.e., as sea ice and snow fields melt the ground and open water absorb more of the Sun's radiation. Second, the air of the polar regions is dry, so dry that they are deserts as much as the Sahara is. Being dry the polar air has very little of the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In moister regions carbon dioxide is a relatively small proportion of the greenhouse gases, but in the dry regions it is relatively more important. Thus if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles there is relatively smaller effect in moister regions than in the dryer regions so the temperature effect of the increased carbon dioxide is greater in the dryer regions. But, if the atmosphere in the polar regions warms there will be more evaporation and thus a postive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor.


This is available on the internet.

I see you believe EVERYTHING that you read in the Internet. Must suck to believe that way.

Ask yourself an important question. What about the Arctic Sea is dry? You should also ask yourself why is the air so dry at the poles?

Then ask yourself the big one: Why the air warm only at the poles to make the ice melt in the first place? Do you have ANY idea of the amount of energy it would take to make a polar ice cap completely melt?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Common sense" would dictate that a single change would have a single, unidirectional effect, but common sense is often wrong. In such a complex system as the Earth, even such a simple change as "1 degree warmer" can have vast, wide-ranging effects.


Gawd I hope the sun doesn't come up, then.


One degree warmer than it otherwise would have been. Keep in mind that the most recent Ice Age was only 4.5C colder than today. We're 15% of that, in the other direction, and in ~86 years, we'll be one Ice Age Unit warmer than pre-industrial times.


So...there is no difference in temperature between night and day?

How are you measuring global temperature? Do you have a magick global thermometer or something?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-10-2016 20:54
09-10-2016 21:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:"The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes,

jwoodward48, help me understand the semantic weaseling going on here. What is meant by warming occurring "especially" at high latitudes? Why is it not especially happening at low latitudes? What is meant by "warming" anyway? Warmizombies specialize in using the vaguest of language so they cannot be pinned down on any semantic whatsoever. If you critique a warmizombie for violating physics then s/he simply says "that's not what was said." Ergo, I'm asking you to get as technical as necessary to explain what is being said.


The average temperature of the troposphere will be called T_t. The difference between T_t now and T_t in 1900 will be called delT_t (for delta). delT_t is higher latitudes is greater than delT_t in lower latitudes, in general.

jwoodward48 wrote:reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly.

Does it cause Santa Clause' reindeer to fly more slowly as well?


If the higher latitudes warm up more than the lower latitudes, then the higher latitudes are relatively warmer, reducing the difference in temperature between the two regions. You do understand how storms form and move, right?

jwoodward48 wrote:This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them.

This is entirely believable for those who worship a "Climate" goddess who arbitrarily controls the weather.


Or for those who believe that weather can be described or predicted. You think it is this entirely random thing that is exempt from science. I'd call that religious, not climate science.

jwoodward48 wrote:Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms."

I always love this part. Droughts are exacerbated by increased precipitation.


Droughts in some areas, floods in others. Can't you understand this?

jwoodward48 wrote:"Common sense" would dictate...

Oh, it's going to get really good now.


Haha, look at the scientifically illiterate idiot, thinking that common sense matters more than science.

jwoodward48 wrote: that a single change would have a single, unidirectional effect,

Yes, that is what happens in physics.

However, if results in nature are based on the arbitrary decisons of unfalsifiable deities, e.g. "Climate," then any "cause" can have any "effect." It's miraculous.


No, that's not what happens in physics, but that's doesn't matter. This isn't physics. In sociology, chemistry, and biology, single changes do not have single, unidirectional effects. Why should climate science be any different?

jwoodward48 wrote:but common sense is often wrong. In such a complex system as the Earth, even such a simple change as "1 degree warmer" can have vast, wide-ranging effects.

Of course. It could bring catastrophic doom to the planet, ... presuming hypothetically for a moment that it is happening, ...and presuming it is a result of "Climate" just being so very pissed at humanity for its carbon sins, ... yes, of course one degree could easily equate to certain doom.

...but what a WACKY religion that would have to be.


.


I'm not saying that we're about to get "punished for our sins." I'm saying that we are more than capable of ****ing up our own little habitable corner of the universe. Even other animals know not to shit where they sleep. Apparently, we don't.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 21:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The greenhouse effect, obviously. As for "especially at high latitudes,"

So everything in the quotation is based on a violation of physics.


Keep on chanting that, it'll be true someday.

jwoodward48 wrote:This is available on the internet.

I'm guessing that all applicable violations of physics are also available on the internet, yes?


.


Well, you don't need me to teach you this "WACKY religion," you could always just Google it. I'm getting sick of Googling answers for people.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 21:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
"The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes, reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly. This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them. Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms."

I think you had better get a better understanding of our atmospheric structure. You're going to need it if you want to go into the aerospace industry.

What would cause this part of the atmosphere to warm up and why would it be confined to this part of the atmosphere?


The greenhouse effect, obviously. As for "especially at high latitudes,"

One of the earliest and consistent predictions of global warming theory is that the polar regions would increase in temperature to a far greater degree than the equatorial regions. This prediction is plausible for several reasons. First of all, the polar regions are subject to the ice-albedo feedback; i.e., as sea ice and snow fields melt the ground and open water absorb more of the Sun's radiation. Second, the air of the polar regions is dry, so dry that they are deserts as much as the Sahara is. Being dry the polar air has very little of the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In moister regions carbon dioxide is a relatively small proportion of the greenhouse gases, but in the dry regions it is relatively more important. Thus if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles there is relatively smaller effect in moister regions than in the dryer regions so the temperature effect of the increased carbon dioxide is greater in the dryer regions. But, if the atmosphere in the polar regions warms there will be more evaporation and thus a postive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor.


This is available on the internet.

I see you believe EVERYTHING that you read in the Internet. Must suck to believe that way.


No. I found a good explanation on the internet that lines up well with what I already know.

Ask yourself an important question. What about the Arctic Sea is dry? You should also ask yourself why is the air so dry at the poles?


Hah! You idiot, I'm talking about humidity.

Then ask yourself the big one: Why the air warm only at the poles to make the ice melt in the first place? Do you have ANY idea of the amount of energy it would take to make a polar ice cap completely melt?


It wouldn't completely melt, obviously. And the air warming at the poles would have a positive feedback effect that makes the air even warmer - that's how the GHE is more effective at higher latitudes.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Common sense" would dictate that a single change would have a single, unidirectional effect, but common sense is often wrong. In such a complex system as the Earth, even such a simple change as "1 degree warmer" can have vast, wide-ranging effects.


Gawd I hope the sun doesn't come up, then.


One degree warmer than it otherwise would have been. Keep in mind that the most recent Ice Age was only 4.5C colder than today. We're 15% of that, in the other direction, and in ~86 years, we'll be one Ice Age Unit warmer than pre-industrial times.


So...there is no difference in temperature between night and day?

How are you measuring global temperature? Do you have a magick global thermometer or something?


The difference between night and day is often more than one Ice Age Unit. Does that mean that Ice Ages are these puny things that have no effect on anything? No. This is obvious.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!




Join the debate But how can Global WARMING make some places cooler? Or similarly, droughts AND torrential rains?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Can we make this lonely shit hole a climate war sand box for newbies?610-06-2018 07:09
More intense droughts and precipitation624-05-2018 21:49
Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?6110-04-2018 15:32
I'm not sure what to make of this1614-03-2018 22:32
Do Catalytic Converters Really make a difference?3614-03-2018 02:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact