Something else to point out:
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
There is not consensus. First paragraph:
Introduction
Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)– mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar,
2003, 2004).
Think about why Argon and preferable Krypton are used to insulate double pane windows. They are poor thermal conductors. The heavier the gas, the less vibration there is per unit of energy. CO2 is heavier than N2 and O2. Molecular weights are 44 for CO2, 32 for O2, and 28 for N2. Argon is 40 and Kryton is 84. Noble gasses are used in windows instead of others because they are nonreactive. H2O is the only really effective greenhouse gas since it's molecular weight is only 18.
There will now be a brief intermission, while certain parties consult the Holy Book of Gore for a rebuttal.
"Yea, the warming doth cause the ice to melt. But verily I say unto you - when warm moist air doth enter that same region, it shall not cause further melting. Yea, instead it shall cause more ice to form.
And it came to pass that more ice formed. And, lo, the new ice melteth not like the old, but resisted the new heat of the evil Indian Ocean and remained. And though the old ice continueth to melt, yea the new ice formeth and replaceth it. And then some.
And ice for an ice, and a truth for a truth. As it is written, so shall it be Gore. Forever and ever, amen."
"Irrefutable science"?
It isn't the underlying science that is what I am skeptical about, it is the way you are applying it.
How does specific heat affect that?
That's just it. Radiative forcing isn't specific heat. The mass of molecules make a difference in thermal conductance as well.
I'm not going to attempt to explain it. If what I already have said in this thread and others isn't enough for you, I doubt you'll ever get it without a one-on-one question and answer. It's just enough complex that it would take a pretty lengthy writing to cover all of it.
You suck at chemistry too apparently.
Both figures are a wee bit South of Manny's prediction it would take THOUSANDS of years for the Himalayas to become bare.
The IPCC clearly predicted they'd be melted within 340 years.
If you'd worry less about digging on me and parsing my every word, maybe you'd get a clue every now and then.
Not nearly as much as molecular structure. You even went towards it talking about noble gases but are too stupid to draw the entire line.
Can we all just acknowledge MannyIsGod blows AGW bull out his ass and treat all his posts on the topic with the ridicule and derision they've always deserved?
Seriously, to boldly claim it would take THOUSANDS of years for the ice to melt off the Himalayas -- EVEN IF TEMPERATURES ROSE TO INCREDIBLE LEVELS -- has got to be the nail in this forum's pompous self-described climate expert's coffin.
You really take the cake, Manny. Well, you and Algore.
Hey, I thought this science was settled years ago.
It was, people are just idiots.
I'm saying that the weather in any given place - and this is a wise area with a wide range of weather and conditions - is not the same and you can't treat it as a "point" location with a static set of conditions.
How would you gain ice over this period of time with warmer temps? Well, I'm sure if you take a look at many mountain peaks you'll see there is a point where the snow stops. On many peaks here in the United States, you have areas on the mountain that melt throughout the year while you may have mountain glaciers in other areas that do not.
So if you raise the temp and move the snow line up in the summer months, then you will melt areas but you will not melt the entire mass of ice because there is not enough energy to do so. In other words, the mountains do not experience the same amount of melt in all locations and this is not the case all year round. In the winter months, you're still going to see most if not all of the mountain snow covered to date even though it has warmed.
That explains how you can have lower elevation melt while not necessarily seeing the same conditions at all places in the range.
As for the snow fall, its not a very difficult explanation either. Water vapor content of a parcel of air is tied to its temperature. The warmer the air, the more water it is able to hold. As air is pushed over mountains, you get adiabatic cooling as that air rises. This is what leads to higher precipitation amounts on mountains and rain shadows behind them. In essence, they squeeze the moisture out of the air that is pushed over them because of they incredible amounts of lift they provide.
No where is this more evident than the areas surrounding the Himalayan range. Those mountains are the direct cause of the greatest monsoon on earth. So, with global warming, the atmosphere is now able to hold more water vapor. When this air is then moved over the mountains, the air rises and cools forcing out the excess water in the form of precipitation.
If these new amounts of precipitation are enough to overcome the melt at the lower elevations then you will obviously see a net increase in the snow and ice amounts in the area.
Any questions?
Not interested in generalized crap about how most studies are wrong or misleading. The vast majority of studies are dry technical papers that don't have an agenda of any sort with the exception of informing you of new - and most likely - incredibly boring findings and research. Hearing someone say this tells me they are very much not familiar with peer review work much less "most" of peer reviewed science.There's a book that you, and a lot of others, should read. It's "Wrong", by David H. Freedman, and it goes into the reasons why many, if not most, published studies are incorrect and misleading. It's not about any ideology, left vs. right, or anything else. But it will give you a pretty good look at the crap that passes for science, and the reasons why flawed studies see the light of day. I don't remember anything about AGW in the book, but there is a great deal that pertains to the underlying studies. Not that I really expect any of the committed zealots to spend any time considering anything that doesn't fit their agenda.
However, if you are interested in pointing to specific studies and telling me why those studies are flawed, misleading, or have errors then I would be completely open to that.
I will discuss any aspect of AGW theory with you that you wish and we can beat it into the ground as much as you'd like. The insinuation that I'm somehow running from things I can't back up is fairly laughable. If you have any specific subject you want to talk about it, then you need simply bring it up.BTW - one thing that a lot of you have learned is the technique of framing the debate. When the discussion of overall warming broke down, you shifted to a discussion of CO2 levels. Most of you don't really understand the CO2 discussions, either. But it makes for a great way to redirect the discussion.
I called it. The schtick has become predictable.
I disavowed Al Gore a long long time ago. Instead of making a fool of yourself, you should read the previous posts in this thead.
Now, the first point you made is just utterly and completely false. Would you like to try back it up?
My religion, huh?
The trend hasn't stalled or reversed and nothing they published recently has indicated nearly as much? If you want to provide a link to where they say the trend never existed then please do so.
The idea that the Himalayan region is adding ice in a very short term is not some kind of bullet to the head of AGW theory for many reasons. Not the least of which are the time frame and the regional scale of the event.
What you're doing is akin to saying that a terminal patient is not going to die because his hair is still growing. Its tunnel vision to the max.
You seriously think the IPCC was claiming the entire continent of Antartica was going to melt in a short time span? Only an idiot would think that, Darrin. Whats the sea level rise over the next 100 years published by the IPCC? Now, how much do you think that would be if the entirety of that continents ice were to melt? It would be an incredible amount higher.
So if you would like to provide links showing there the IPCC ever claimed that then I would love to see them.
Really? A ing typo is the best you have?
Oh wow. I'm sorry I couldn't respond on your time frame. Since you have so much time maybe you should spend some of it reading the thread instead of looking like a dumb ass when you continue to bring up Al Gore after I've continuously said he's not a climate scientist.
You're illiterate.
Go back and read that "prediction" I made and then tell me it was about the Himalayan range. It was about Antarctica.
Reading is hard, isn't it?
The IPCC clearly predicted they'd be melted within 340 years.
If you'd worry less about digging on me and parsing my every word, maybe you'd get a clue every now and then.
Maybe you should stop telling people to get a clue until you have one.
Its always a pleasure to see someone own themselves so hard. Amazing how its not the first time for you in this position, Yoni?Can we all just acknowledge MannyIsGod blows AGW bull out his ass and treat all his posts on the topic with the ridicule and derision they've always deserved?
Seriously, to boldly claim it would take THOUSANDS of years for the ice to melt off the Himalayas -- EVEN IF TEMPERATURES ROSE TO INCREDIBLE LEVELS -- has got to be the nail in this forum's pompous self-described climate expert's coffin.
You really take the cake, Manny. Well, you and Algore.
Hey, I thought this science was settled years ago.
Yoni, since its apparent going through posts pushes you beyond your limits, here is the timeline presented for you in one concise place.
Don't strain yourself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nda?intcmp=122
The scientist responded today about his paper in a Q&A they had.
His first comment?
Hmm, regional scale and time scale. Who would have thought.
frustratedartist
9 February 2012 1:08PM
Next to this story I notice there is a link to a story about the retreat of Himalayan glaciers over the last 50 years- a slightly longer timescale. Glaciers in other parts of the world are also retreating, causing serious problems to water supply in mountain cities like La Paz, Bolivia.
So- two questions I'd like to ask professor Bamber: question 1: Is it reasonable to assume that the general tendency is that, globally, glaciers are retreating?
And also, question 2 : for people studying climate change, what is the most meaningful timescale? Does it make most sense to look at changes (in whatever indicators are being measured) on a year-by-year basis, a decade by decade basis, a century by century basis- or some other timescale?
@frustratedartist. Here's my answer two your two good questions
1) Yes. If you look at the larger glaciers systems (Alaska, Canadian Arctic, Patagonia, Antarctica, Greenland) they all show a significant -ve trend that is larger than the uncertainty. For the smaller systems such as the Alps, where there is relatively good in-situ observations, these also show a -ve trend. The uncertainties in the GRACE estimates for these smaller systems are about the same size as the signal, which is why hard to use them to determine smaller loss terms.
2) So what is the right timescale? This all depends on the system you're interested in and what you want to know. For example, the deep, abyssal circulation in the ocean takes thousands of years, while mesoscale eddies at the surface come and go over a few weeks. Generally, 30 years is considered to be a reasonable period for looking at climatological means that are controlled be atmospheric processes. In other words, over this timescale, inter-annual variability is reduced so that trends should be visible. In my article, and in the authors paper, we acknowledge that 8 years is a short time period and it is important, therefore, not to over-interpret the results.
When you guys are done looking at the Himalayan glacier situation then maybe you can look at the rest of the work done by GRACE in analyzing the ice around the world and its changes.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1278
Heh... more deflection and subject-changing. I can see why you would want to move away from the Himalayas. But let's not just yet. Instead, how about just answering some very simple questions about your faith?
I'll ask again. If the Himalayas were losing ice due to rising temperature, how can they retain the ice from the new water you claim is being deposited?
And if there is warm, humid air coming up from the Indian Ocean, why is all that additional heat not accelerating the ice melt that was supposedly already present?
Oddly, you claim that the "new ice" in the Himalayas is from this warm, humid air. So what you were really saying, although you didn't take the time to think about it, is that the ice was disappearing from lack of water. Because as soon as there was additional water, the ice quit disappearing. It didn't even matter that the water was in the form of warm, humid air. Somehow it froze, yet didn't add to the "warming" that was supposedly taking place.
The only alternative is that you somehow believe that this new ice is more resistant to warming. You don't believe that, do you?
If you can't answer my questions, you're the one who looks like a dumbass. And you can't answer them, because there's no way you can twist logic far enough to encompass everything that's wrong with the "Indian Ocean humidity" theories.
No - Al Gore is no climate scientist. And yet, there he is, standing in front of the UN, IPCC, etc., and shaping climate policy around the world. You zealots used to worship him, until he got exposed for the charlatan he is. Now you've tossed him under the bus. You used to refer to AGW, like it was the Holy Grail of Science. Now you've thrown it under the bus in favor of Global Climate Change. Every time something gets proven false, you simply say that it never really existed in your religion, and move on to the next thing.
When the link you posted is proven false, you'll deny any connection to it as well. There will always be another mercenary willing to supply you with some new holy relics.
Last edited by GSH; 02-10-2012 at 12:30 AM.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
