Remember me
▼ Content

Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally15-02-2011 04:22
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
The regional increase in snow fall is chiefly due to CO2-induced global warming; globally, snow fall has been and will continue to decrease. Some of the papers on the subject:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-1.html

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1525-7541/5/1/pdf/i1525-7541-5-1-64.pdf

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/global_extremes_for_jgr.pdf

http://www.drinetwork.ca/extremes/documents/Groisman_et_al_2005_Global_Intense_precip.pdf

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf

http://www.mtu.edu/alumni/favorites/snowfall/snowfall.html

http://web.unbc.ca/%7Esdery/publicationfiles/2007GL031474.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html
RE: Citations on snow fall?15-02-2011 18:27
Hayduke
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
[quote]Desertphile wrote:
The regional increase in snow fall is chiefly due to CO2-induced global warming; globally, snow fall has been and will continue to decrease. Some of the papers on the subject:

None of these citations provide evidence to support the above contention of the casue of snow fall variability. There is no observable connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and snow fall.
15-02-2011 21:19
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
Hayduke wrote:None of these citations provide evidence to support the above contention of the casue of snow fall variability. There is no observable connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and snow fall.


It's been an observed fact over over 150 years, you stupid shit. Increased atmospheric temperature results in increased water vapor. As tjhe links I posted above demonstrate, IT'S AN OBSERVED FACT.

Sheeeish.
15-02-2011 23:25
Hayduke
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)

It's been an observed fact over over 150 years, you stupid shit. Increased atmospheric temperature results in increased water vapor. As tjhe links I posted above demonstrate, IT'S AN OBSERVED FACT.

Sheeeish.


I do not respond to ignorant personal attacks.

Is there no moderator on these forums to enforce behavior? If not, I will have no part of this.
15-02-2011 23:53
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
Hayduke wrote:
I do not respond to ignorant personal attacks.

Is there no moderator on these forums to enforce behavior? If not, I will have no part of this.


There is a moderator, and that's me. I will now delete the worst personal attacks that i find in the posts. Desertphile, please stop such personal attacks or you will be banned from the forum. That would be a shame, as you seem to have a lot of points/references to share, so PLEASE stick to that!
Edited on 15-02-2011 23:59
11-05-2011 23:59
hotair
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Hayduke wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
The regional increase in snow fall is chiefly due to CO2-induced global warming; globally, snow fall has been and will continue to decrease. Some of the papers on the subject:

None of these citations provide evidence to support the above contention of the cause of snow fall variability. There is no observable connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and snow fall.



Hayduke: I admit that he posted a lot of links, but I also think you need to accept the basic facts that as the world heats, climate will change.

Canada is expecting yet another record hot year. Yet where I live has had heavier snow, and was very cold and wet.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Environment+Canada+predicts+warm+summer/4727796/story.html

Last year was the same by the way.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

The point is that as climate changes, the effects from one region to the next will be different. Some will be winners and some will be losers. All models, data, and observations are showing this.

This is a direct result of CO2 \ green house gases, aka global warming.


Incidentally that last trend report of Canada's weather correlates nicely with the extent of ice melt;
05-05-2014 06:52
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Oh yeah how come this
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608029994716561964&pid=15.1
27-08-2016 01:19
StephenS20
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Well, that is a very good point that you make. While the arctic air mass is going to become warmer, it won't become too warm for there to be snowfall. Also, it will contain substantially more moisture. Larger ice free areas will also likely serve to increase the moisture content of the air in the arctic and far north. Therefore, I think that areas in the arctic and far north can expect increased snowfall. Additionally, if the arctic air mass warms, it may expand. The polar vortex would be likely to spread southward as a result of this, and may lead to nor'easters tracking south of where they ordinarily would. However, overall these regions would be likely to have reduced snowfall overall, because temperatures would be far warmer.

The "snowmaggedon" event several years ago was caused by the jet stream going far south of where it ordinarily does. As a result, Washington, DC received more than three feet of snow!

Also, if the North Atlantic current were to shut down or slow down as a result of melting ice, many areas would likely experience drastically increased snowfall. The temperature difference between areas to the south of the jet stream and the north would be enhanced, causing the jet stream to become exceptionally strong, resulting in very severe winter storms of a magnitude we don't currently see anywhere. However, the global average would still be increased, because the air to the south of the jet stream would become far warmer than it is currently.
31-03-2018 23:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Desertphile wrote:
The regional increase in snow fall is chiefly due to CO2-induced global warming; globally, snow fall has been and will continue to decrease. Some of the papers on the subject:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-1.html

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1525-7541/5/1/pdf/i1525-7541-5-1-64.pdf

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/global_extremes_for_jgr.pdf

http://www.drinetwork.ca/extremes/documents/Groisman_et_al_2005_Global_Intense_precip.pdf

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf

http://www.mtu.edu/alumni/favorites/snowfall/snowfall.html

http://web.unbc.ca/%7Esdery/publicationfiles/2007GL031474.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html


We MAY be having a climate change that is expressed in warming. This has occurred many times in the past - the most easily accessible is the Roman Warm Period circa 140 BC and the Medieval Warm Period circa 800-1400 AD. After these warm periods we generally had cold periods though after the Medieval Warm Period we had the extreme Little Ice Age.

Our present warm period appears to be spaced regularly from the others an hence makes the term "man-made" appear to be very unlikely.\

Or probably more importantly you should be shown some important information: NASA has been toying with the raw temperature records. They have changed this at least three times:

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

And the results of this manufacturing of data is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Pay particular attention to the area of the NASA temperature chart from 1979 to - present. Now let us look at Dr. Roy Spencer's temperature chart over that same period. Dr. Spencer was the head of the NASA weather satellite program and his chart is directly from the weather satellites:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Dr. Spencer's chart has a zero point line running through the middle. This is because the AVERAGE temperature change is about zero. If you don't know how to read charts like this it could appear to be rising somewhat but in fact it only shows normal weather variations and not climate change in this period.

CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in the Troposphere for reasons that have been known for over a century: The absorption bands of CO2 are three quite narrow bands. The emissions from the Sun hits the Earth and that warming converts the high energy visible wavelengths into the lower infrared bands. While the area in which this occurs is near the absorption bands of CO2 it is offset quite a bit and so there simply isn't very much energy in those bands to absorb. My estimation is that full absorption occurs somewhere between 200 and 250 ppm - so any CO2 above those levels have no energy to absorb and so cannot cause any additional warming.

If you must get angry get so due to what the environmentalists have been putting this country through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvdSmPbdLg

I could go into the technical parts of all of this but these postings are all over these groups. Man-made climate change is a hoax. It was a hoax from the very beginning and now scientists are tired of remaining quiet in order to keep a liberal government from taking away their research grants.

What's really important?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3Vsfzdr14
02-05-2019 02:26
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.
02-05-2019 04:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
dehammer wrote:
Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.


How do you know snow is decreasing? You are also making a compositional error. Not all glaciers are retreating. Some are growing, including right here in Washington.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 06:02
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I don't know personally, but this is what the scientist are reporting.

I have heard that since the sunspots are disappearing again, the glaciers are expanding again.
02-05-2019 18:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
dehammer wrote:Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.


dehammer wrote:
I don't know personally, but this is what the scientist are reporting.

I have heard that since the sunspots are disappearing again, the glaciers are expanding again.


Paradox. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 19:38
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
As the alarmist. Its their paradox.
02-05-2019 19:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.


https://icelandmag.is/article/icelandic-glaciers-expand-first-time-over-20-years

Psst - this was in 2015 and has continued. Most of the other Arctic glaciers also have been expanding with a few exceptions.
02-05-2019 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
dehammer wrote:
As the alarmist. Its their paradox.


No, it's YOURS. YOU made the statements. You can't just shove it onto the nameless.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 20:34
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I have heard scientist say that all glaciers are retreating.
I have heard scientist say that some glaciers are expanding.

There is no paradox on my side. What I find a paradox is how you can write as if you know science and at the same time prove you don't.
02-05-2019 20:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.


https://icelandmag.is/article/icelandic-glaciers-expand-first-time-over-20-years

Psst - this was in 2015 and has continued. Most of the other Arctic glaciers also have been expanding with a few exceptions.
I am aware of it and the alarmist are still trying to explain it as climate change.

The Truth of the matter is that according to the alarmist ANYTHING can happen and its because of man made co2. The earth will burn up or because an ice ball and its because of man made co2.

(how do you do the roll dyes smileys?)
Edited on 02-05-2019 20:36
02-05-2019 20:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
As the alarmist. Its their paradox.


Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic. The NASA and NOAA people have been operating under the mistaken models that there is a large climate sensitivity. Lord Monckton took their models apart and showed that in fact the climate sensitivity is very low. I'm not going to hand that reference to you for the 100th time so you can look it up.

Furthermore, NONE of the models of global warming could possibly exist for several reasons - 1. CO2 has absolutely no effect on the atmosphere retaining any more heat than normal 2. Since the climate sensitivity is so low the only thing that can effect it is the actual solar constant and that is effected ONLY by the Earth's orbital variations and the small variations in solar output.

Now to put paid to these false Gods of the True Believers, NASA and NOAA have actually lied about the long term temperature records. This is easily enough proven now that without Obama in office, scientists are no longer afraid to speak up - and they are showing that the temperature records have been continuously modified by people we were supposed to be able to trust, to fit their own purposes.

As to those that do not understand the atmospheric reactions I will only pass this on for the final time: https://physicsabout.com/conductionconvection-and-radiation/

As you can see - conduction and convection are simply different names for the physical transfer of heat energy through matter. Radiation is the transfer of energy via electromagnetic waves.

This means that it is the DENSITY of the atmosphere and not the composition that causes the mean global temperature.

This has ONE exception - the atmospheric amount of H2O in it's three phases.

High ice crystal clouds reflect solar RADIATION and allow less solar energy to reach the ground.

Rain clouds and humidity slow the release of energy by absorbing heat from the surface and slowing its reaching the upper atmosphere.

Because this is physical conduction the average humidity in the atmosphere is very important. We are presently at the upper peak of temperature and this means that the energy falling on the Earth is being reduced by the largest percentage of H2O that the atmosphere would normally hold.

This reduces the solar constant and the Earth's temperature will slowly fall. The atmosphere is VERY large so the H2O contents will remain very high for a very long time. The Earth's temperature will slowly fall in a somewhat chaotic manner due to the movement of clouds but it WILL continue to fall until it reaches the point where most of all of the water is frozen out of the atmosphere. At this point there is no or very little high altitude clouds and the Earth's surface is wide open to solar radiation and the warming begins again.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=imgurl%3ahttps%3a%2f%2fjohnosullivan.files.wordpress.com%2f2012%2f04%2fvostok-ice-data.jpg&view=detailv2&iss=sbi&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dice+core+data&form=IEQNAI&selectedindex=0&id=https%3A%2F%2Fjohnosullivan.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fvostok-ice-data.jpg&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fjohnosullivan.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fvostok-ice-data.jpg&exph=0&expw=0&vt=0

This re-warming is relatively fast because the up-take of water back into the atmosphere is as slow as the freezing out of it. So while we have a very slow falling temperature from a warm period at the temperature peak to the ice age, the other way about is rather rapid and only takes 10,000 years to warm again vs. the 100,000 it requires to cool.
02-05-2019 21:19
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.
What I know is that no one knows enough to say what is man made and what is not. All the REAL evidence says that co2 is not the driver many people claim it is.

the 100,000 it requires to cool.
Not according to the ice cores. Interglacial periods last about 25k years. The first 8000 or so is warming, with the majority in the first 2000. This is followed by a slow decrease to the glacial period, usually lasting 17000 years or so. We are 12000 years into that last period. So the glacial period should start in 5000 years.
02-05-2019 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
dehammer wrote:
I have heard scientist say that all glaciers are retreating.
I have heard scientist say that some glaciers are expanding.

There is no paradox on my side. What I find a paradox is how you can write as if you know science and at the same time prove you don't.


Yes there is. You made the statements as your own arguments.

Argument of the stone. Inversion fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. Redirection fallacy. Paradox. Redefinition fallacy (void -> science).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-05-2019 22:01
02-05-2019 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
As the alarmist. Its their paradox.


Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.

No, Wake. Climate simply is. It has no moment of time in the definition of climate. Further, there is no such thing as a global climate.
Wake wrote:
The NASA and NOAA people have been operating under the mistaken models that there is a large climate sensitivity.

No such thing. Climates don't have a 'sensitivity'.
Wake wrote:
Lord Monckton took their models apart and showed that in fact the climate sensitivity is very low. I'm not going to hand that reference to you for the 100th time so you can look it up.

False authority fallacy, used to justify a buzzword.
Wake wrote:
Furthermore, NONE of the models of global warming could possibly exist for several reasons - 1. CO2 has absolutely no effect on the atmosphere retaining any more heat than normal

You are almost correct. CO2 has no affect on the temperature of the Earth. However, heat is not contained in anything.
Wake wrote:
2. Since the climate sensitivity is so low the only thing that can effect it is the actual solar constant and that is effected ONLY by the Earth's orbital variations and the small variations in solar output.

There is no such thing as a climate 'sensitivity', Wake. It's a buzzword. It's meaningless.
Wake wrote:
Now to put paid to these false Gods of the True Believers, NASA and NOAA have actually lied about the long term temperature records.

There are no global temperature records, Wake. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
This is easily enough proven now that without Obama in office, scientists are no longer afraid to speak up

Yes they are. In case you haven't noticed, the liberals are still in charge of the grant offices at the various schools.
Wake wrote:
- and they are showing that the temperature records

There are no global temperatures, Wake.
Wake wrote:
have been continuously modified by people we were supposed to be able to trust, to fit their own purposes.

Modifying random number to produce random numbers is meaningless.
Wake wrote:
As to those that do not understand the atmospheric reactions I will only pass this on for the final time: https://physicsabout.com/conductionconvection-and-radiation/

Heat is a reaction in the atmosphere, Wake.
Wake wrote:
As you can see - conduction and convection are simply different names for the physical transfer of heat energy through matter. Radiation is the transfer of energy via electromagnetic waves.

Heat is not energy, Wake. Convection is not moving energy through matter either. You obviously don't understand what convection is. Not surprising, since you deny meteorology and how clouds and storms form and dissipate.
Wake wrote:
This means that it is the DENSITY of the atmosphere and not the composition that causes the mean global temperature.

Partly right. The Sun is the most significant source of energy for Earth, literally outshining everything else. Denser atmospheres allow greater contact with the surface of a planet improving conductive heating, it also provides a greater surface area for directly absorbing sunlight.
Wake wrote:
This has ONE exception - the atmospheric amount of H2O in it's three phases.

High ice crystal clouds

WTF??? YOU said clouds aren't solid, Wake! Which is it??
Wake wrote:
reflect solar RADIATION and allow less solar energy to reach the ground.

Cirrus clouds of this sort are pretty damn thin, Wake. They do not noticeably reduce light from reaching the surface.
Wake wrote:
Rain clouds and humidity slow the release of energy by absorbing heat from the surface and slowing its reaching the upper atmosphere.

You cannot slow or trap heat, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Because this is physical conduction the average humidity in the atmosphere is very important.

Clouds are not formed by conductive heating, Wake. But, then again, you deny how clouds form and dissipate.
Wake wrote:
We are presently at the upper peak of temperature and this means that the energy falling on the Earth is being reduced by the largest percentage of H2O that the atmosphere would normally hold.

The Earth is not at 100% humidity, Wake. Clouds are not humidity.
Wake wrote:
This reduces the solar constant

The Sun is still putting out the same energy, Wake, regardless of what any clouds on Earth are doing.
Wake wrote:
and the Earth's temperature will slowly fall.

Clouds are part of the Earth, Wake. They have a temperature too. They also do not cover the entire Earth.

You also entered another paradox:
1) clouds warm the surface
2) clouds cool the surface

Which is it, dude?

Wake wrote:
The atmosphere is VERY large so the H2O contents will remain very high for a very long time.

There is no global humidity, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The Earth's temperature will slowly fall in a somewhat chaotic manner due to the movement of clouds

You are locked in paradox. You are repeating argument 2) again.
Wake wrote:
but it WILL continue to fall until it reaches the point where most of all of the water is frozen out of the atmosphere.

Then why is a tropical rain forest (close to 100% humidity most of the time) warmer than Antarctica (close to 2% humidity most of the time).
Wake wrote:
At this point there is no or very little high altitude clouds

You are locked in paradox on this statement too. Did you know that cirrus clouds form in both the tropics and at the poles? Did you know that cirrus clouds may not even form, or if they do, humidity isn't affected?
Wake wrote:
and the Earth's surface is wide open to solar radiation and the warming begins again.

There is no sequence, Wake. Cirrus clouds can form anywhere, regardless of temperature. They do not in turn affect temperature. Neither do they remove all the humidity from the air.
Wake wrote:
This re-warming is relatively fast because the up-take of water back into the atmosphere is as slow as the freezing out of it.

How does New Orleans warm up? Humidity there is close to 97% much of the time, even at night. How does a valley fog 'burn off' and the valley warm up?
Wake wrote:
So while we have a very slow falling temperature from a warm period at the temperature peak to the ice age, the other way about is rather rapid and only takes 10,000 years to warm again vs. the 100,000 it requires to cool.

How do you know? Were you there? Your mechanism sure wouldn't do it. Clouds form and dissipate in a space of time MUCH shorter than 100,000 years!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-05-2019 22:36
02-05-2019 22:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you think mr nye.
02-05-2019 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
dehammer wrote:
What ever you think mr nye.


Insult fallacy. Bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 22:50
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Ayep, that is Bill Nye the fake science guy.
02-05-2019 23:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
dehammer wrote:
Ayep, that is Bill Nye the fake science guy.

Nope. that is a list of fallacies you are committing. Non-sequitur fallacy. Fixation.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 00:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You also entered another paradox:
1) clouds warm the surface
2) clouds cool the surface


Here is a bit of real science for you. Low level clouds cool the surface by allowing infrared to escape and blocking sunlight from being absorbed by the earth.
High level clouds help keep the earth warm by absorbing more sunlight and reflecting infrared back to the earth.

Again, more proof you do not know anything about science.
03-05-2019 01:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.
What I know is that no one knows enough to say what is man made and what is not. All the REAL evidence says that co2 is not the driver many people claim it is.

the 100,000 it requires to cool.
Not according to the ice cores. Interglacial periods last about 25k years. The first 8000 or so is warming, with the majority in the first 2000. This is followed by a slow decrease to the glacial period, usually lasting 17000 years or so. We are 12000 years into that last period. So the glacial period should start in 5000 years.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=A47BF2FDB6EC838D0F38E128E6839FB80019FEDD&thid=OIP.EYvZZ4hmKb8iUWfPnOHGOwEsCn&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnosullivan.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fvostok-ice-data.jpg&exph=335&expw=599&q=vostok+ice+core+results&selectedindex=0&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6
Edited on 03-05-2019 01:05
03-05-2019 01:15
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It depends on what part you call the glaciation and the interglacial period. According to your definition, its all interglacial. There is a point where they no longer call it interglacial, and yes, even in that period there will be warming periods, but not enough to be called interglacial.

What I was referring to is the beginning of the glacial period.
03-05-2019 01:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
It depends on what part you call the glaciation and the interglacial period. According to your definition, its all interglacial. There is a point where they no longer call it interglacial, and yes, even in that period there will be warming periods, but not enough to be called interglacial.

What I was referring to is the beginning of the glacial period.


The glacial period starts when all of the free water is frozen out of the air.
03-05-2019 01:18
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
If it was all frozen out of the air, there would be no snow to cover the glaciers. The only time there is no rain or snow is in a snowball earth period.
03-05-2019 02:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
If it was all frozen out of the air, there would be no snow to cover the glaciers. The only time there is no rain or snow is in a snowball earth period.


Huh? The glaciers are frozen to the maximum extent before it ever gets to that point. As it gets colder and colder the air holds less and less moisture. It will carry less moisture and more and more deposition on glaciers comes from frost until all of the atmospheric humidity is gone With that there are no longer any high altitude clouds. These are the clouds that reflect the solar emissions.

All of these downward steps lasts a hell of a long time. What you can bet is that on any one of these steps that people will be claiming that it has never been warmer than it is on a hot day at X latitude and longitude. But that is only surface temperatures.

At the stratopause right now it is slightly below 0 degrees C - freezing. But this is FAR warmer than the layers beneath. Remember that warm air rises. So between the ground and the tropopause the temperature drops dramatically with air density. Then from there to the top of the stratopause the air warms as the warm air rises and the cooler air drops. It can only act in this manner because of the lower atmospheric density in the stratosphere. In the troposphere the weather generated convection winds would cause too much mixing. In the stratosphere and the mesosphere the winds are VERY fast. But because the atmospheric density is so low all it causes is mixing and not convection. This allows a smooth layering of temperatures from around -60 C to nearly 0 C.

Above the stratopause the temperature in the mesosphere drops dramatically but that is because the air density is almost undetectable. How do you measure the temperature of open space?

But now another strange thing occurs - you enter the thermosphere and there is essentially NO atmosphere. The individual molecules are so far apart that what little there are can absorb UV radiation. It doesn't require a lot of energy to cause them to start radiating energy since they cannot get rid of it through conduction. There is no atmosphere at that point to support convection. This radiation is in all directions but because of the altitude, most of the radiation misses the Earth and flies into open space. Though some of it does return and begins its pathway back to heaven.

In any case there is a LOT of energy in the UV band even though the actual width of that band is narrow and the vast majority of energy is in the visual bands. Time for Nightmare to start quoting the Stefan-Boltzmann Law again as if he knew what it meant. I never could get it through his head that all that tells you is the precise color of the emissions at any temperature.

So even though the far upper reaches of the atmosphere absorb a tiny amount of the UV, the Ozone Layer absorbs most of what else comes through. Not all though and be sure to wear your sunblock on sunny days.

As I said, while the climate is really complex and every single part of it can take an entire book to cover, the overall principles are pretty simple.

It is not within the capacity of most people to understand all of the complex workings of atmospheric physics but most people can understand the general theory.

The point of all of this is simply that it is only atmospheric density that counts and not the gases that compose that atmosphere.
03-05-2019 03:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You should check out something called snowball earth. Evidence exist that suggest that the earth has had to periods where even the oceans froze over. This happened because there was still water vapor in the air. This meant there was still snow falling.

This means the "maximum extension" of the ice is the equator. That has not happen in several hundred million years minimum.
03-05-2019 03:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
You should check out something called snowball earth. Evidence exist that suggest that the earth has had to periods where even the oceans froze over. This happened because there was still water vapor in the air. This meant there was still snow falling.

This means the "maximum extension" of the ice is the equator. That has not happen in several hundred million years minimum.


That was a very poor hypothesis to explain what appear to be glacial rock-type deposits at tropical latitudes. This was from a "fixist" point of view - those that denied the theory of Continental Drift.

Presently the theory of Continental Drift is in a much stronger position and so that would answer most of these questions. Especially since 650 Myr ago the sun was MUCH hotter than it presently is.
03-05-2019 03:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
dehammer wrote:
You also entered another paradox:
1) clouds warm the surface
2) clouds cool the surface


Here is a bit of real science for you. Low level clouds cool the surface by allowing infrared to escape and blocking sunlight from being absorbed by the earth.
High level clouds help keep the earth warm by absorbing more sunlight and reflecting infrared back to the earth.

Again, more proof you do not know anything about science.

Neither is science. You are still locked in paradox.

You are still denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics too. You can't heat the surface with a colder substance. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance.

You can't do it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-05-2019 03:54
03-05-2019 03:55
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
That was the original point of it. There has been more evidence to support EVEN with continental drift.

They have done computer models that show that if the ice ever gets south of a point, basically the north most line of Texas, it will pass a point of thermo-runaway. At that point the albedo of the ice will reflect so much sunlight that the earth can not melt off the ice each year. It will just continue to go farther until even the ocean are covered.

As with the little ice age, it isn't how hot the sun is, but how much of the sun's energy is absorbed by the earth.
03-05-2019 03:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.
What I know is that no one knows enough to say what is man made and what is not. All the REAL evidence says that co2 is not the driver many people claim it is.

the 100,000 it requires to cool.
Not according to the ice cores. Interglacial periods last about 25k years. The first 8000 or so is warming, with the majority in the first 2000. This is followed by a slow decrease to the glacial period, usually lasting 17000 years or so. We are 12000 years into that last period. So the glacial period should start in 5000 years.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=A47BF2FDB6EC838D0F38E128E6839FB80019FEDD&thid=OIP.EYvZZ4hmKb8iUWfPnOHGOwEsCn&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnosullivan.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fvostok-ice-data.jpg&exph=335&expw=599&q=vostok+ice+core+results&selectedindex=0&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

Ice cores do not show global temperatures, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 03:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
It depends on what part you call the glaciation and the interglacial period. According to your definition, its all interglacial. There is a point where they no longer call it interglacial, and yes, even in that period there will be warming periods, but not enough to be called interglacial.

What I was referring to is the beginning of the glacial period.


The glacial period starts when all of the free water is frozen out of the air.


Then it never occurred. It is not possible to freeze all the water out of the air.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 03:57
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Yes, it is, if the oceans are frozen over.
03-05-2019 05:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9912)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
If it was all frozen out of the air, there would be no snow to cover the glaciers. The only time there is no rain or snow is in a snowball earth period.


Huh? The glaciers are frozen to the maximum extent before it ever gets to that point. As it gets colder and colder the air holds less and less moisture. It will carry less moisture and more and more deposition on glaciers comes from frost until all of the atmospheric humidity is gone With that there are no longer any high altitude clouds. These are the clouds that reflect the solar emissions.

No, Wake. dehammer happens to be right about this one. Glaciers will not grow without snow to feed them. It is not possible to freeze all the moisture out of the air at those temperatures.
Wake wrote:
All of these downward steps lasts a hell of a long time. What you can bet is that on any one of these steps that people will be claiming that it has never been warmer than it is on a hot day at X latitude and longitude. But that is only surface temperatures.

There is no global temperature record, Wake.
Wake wrote:
At the stratopause right now it is slightly below 0 degrees C - freezing. But this is FAR warmer than the layers beneath. Remember that warm air rises. So between the ground and the tropopause the temperature drops dramatically with air density.

About 2 degC per 1000 feet under standard conditions up to the tropopause at around 30,000 ft. Above that, the air temperature stays about the same until about 100,000 ft. This is where the ozone is formed.
Temperature then increases as ozone rises up into less dense air where UV-C light can destroy it., returning thermal energy to the atmosphere. Energy density is still decreasing, however, due to the thinning air.

At the stratopause (some 37 miles high), temperature decreases again until the mesopause, some 55 miles high. The air above this is now thin enough to absorb high speed protons from the Sun (the solar wind), and air temperature begins to rise again (while energy density is still decreasing). There is no top to the atmosphere. It just fades away into nothing. Space is generally agreed to begin at about 62 miles high, since the thermosphere is so thin even though it goes up to beyond 80 miles.

All weather takes place in the troposphere, with some particularly violent storms rising into the lower edges of the stratosphere. This is also where cirrus clouds form, if there is sufficient moisture. Aircraft provide moisture from their engines when they fly, and the sudden decompression of air leaving the engine exhaust causes this moisture to condense out and form clouds, but in a streak following the path of the aircraft. These are the contrails. They can only form if there is already enough moisture in the region to add to what the engine is putting out.
Wake wrote:
Then from there to the top of the stratopause the air warms as the warm air rises and the cooler air drops.

Nope. The tropopause was never warmer than the stratosphere to begin with, Wake.
Wake wrote:
It can only act in this manner because of the lower atmospheric density in the stratosphere.

Air pressure is irrelevant in this regard.
Wake wrote:
In the troposphere the weather generated convection winds would cause too much mixing.

Wind is not convection, Wake. Learn what convective heating is.
Wake wrote:
In the stratosphere and the mesosphere the winds are VERY fast.

Depends on where you are.
Wake wrote:
But because the atmospheric density is so low all it causes is mixing and not convection.

Convective heating takes place at all altitudes, Wake. Learn what convective heating is.
Wake wrote:
This allows a smooth layering of temperatures from around -60 C to nearly 0 C.

Nope. That is caused by ozone formation and destruction at differing altitudes. See the Chapman cycle.
Wake wrote:
Above the stratopause the temperature in the mesosphere drops dramatically but that is because the air density is almost undetectable.

It is quite detectable. That's why we still call it the atmosphere, Wake.
Wake wrote:
How do you measure the temperature of open space?

You can't. The mesophere is not open space, Wake. Even the area we call the beginning of space is not open space, Wake.
Wake wrote:
But now another strange thing occurs - you enter the thermosphere and there is essentially NO atmosphere.

Yes there is. We call it the thermosphere.
Wake wrote:
The individual molecules are so far apart that what little there are can absorb UV radiation.

Yes they do. UV light is absorbed by one thing or another all the way to the surface, Wake. Absorption of UV does not cause heating.
Wake wrote:
It doesn't require a lot of energy to cause them to start radiating energy

Everything above absolute zero is radiating light, Wake. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
since they cannot get rid of it through conduction.

Nothing stops conduction as long as there is matter to conduct.
Wake wrote:
There is no atmosphere at that point to support convection.

Yes there is.
Wake wrote:
This radiation is in all directions but because of the altitude, most of the radiation misses the Earth and flies into open space.

You can't heat the surface using a colder substance, Wake. You can't heat it using very thin air either.
Wake wrote:
Though some of it does return and begins its pathway back to heaven.

Space isn't heaven, Wake.
Wake wrote:
In any case there is a LOT of energy in the UV band

Nope. The band is narrow, and UV is not the highest amount of energy emitted by the Sun. Infrared is. About 51% of the Sun's emissions are in the infrared band.

You are confusing the energy of a single photon compared to another single photon. You are failing to consider amplitude, or the intensity of light.
Wake wrote:
even though the actual width of that band is narrow and the vast majority of energy is in the visual bands.

WRONG. The highest amount of energy emitted by the Sun is in the infrared band, Wake. The visible bands are narrower than the UV bands. Like the UV bands, they do not heat the Earth. Infrared light does.
Wake wrote:
Time for Nightmare to start quoting the Stefan-Boltzmann Law again

Yes, it is. You are again denying it.
Wake wrote:
as if he knew what it meant.

r = SC * e * t^4
where r is radiance of the surface in watts / sq meter, SC is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (a constant of nature), e is the emissivity (and absorptivity) of the surface expressed as a percentage between to ideal points, and t is temperature in Kelvins.

What part of this confuses you, Wake?
Wake wrote:
I never could get it through his head that all that tells you is the precise color of the emissions at any temperature.

WRONG. It has no term for frequency anywhere in the equation. The equation is the result of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies. That means emissivity as well.
Wake wrote:
So even though the far upper reaches of the atmosphere absorb a tiny amount of the UV, the Ozone Layer absorbs most of what else comes through.

O3 absorbs primarily UV-C. That destroys the ozone and reverts it to oxygen. O2 absorbs UV-B, which is more intense at a deeper point in the atmosphere, and produces O3. A very small amount of UV-C reaches the surface, more UV-B reaches the surface (which causes sunburns), and most UV-A reaches the surface (which causes suntans and is part of the visual range for certain critters like insects).
Wake wrote:
Not all though and be sure to wear your sunblock on sunny days.

You can burn on an overcast day, Wake. Happens all the time here in Seattle!
Wake wrote:
As I said, while the climate is really complex and every single part of it can take an entire book to cover, the overall principles are pretty simple.

True. Basically, all you really to know and accept are the laws of thermodynamics (which you deny), the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you deny), the Chapman Cycle (which you deny), and how to determine surface area of gas at various pressures.
Wake wrote:
It is not within the capacity of most people to understand all of the complex workings of atmospheric physics but most people can understand the general theory.

It is. But you don't understand it. Neither does dehammer or James.
Wake wrote:
The point of all of this is simply that it is only atmospheric density that counts and not the gases that compose that atmosphere.

Quite true, but not for the reasons you give. The reason is the equation you deny:

r=SC*e*t^4


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Where's the Snow?912-11-2019 17:18
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact