Is Global Warming Real?

[Spendulus]

Well, hey! All you GW jokers don't have to sit around with your thumbs blah, blah, blah. Show us the hot weather forecasts.


Several Blasts Of Arctic Air Will Bring Early Winter To Northeast

Global warming means on average. It absolutely doesn't mean that every part of the globe will be hotter at every moment in the year.
In fact global warming leads to greater temperature volatility. Yes, long droughts and fires, but also stronger hurricanes and heavier rainfall.
You go out on a summer's day, and it can be very humid. Go out on a winter's day, and it is never humid. Hot air contains more water. Hot air has more energy. Global warming doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time, it means hotter on average, globally, year to year. GW is weather on steroids.

No, that isn't even close to a definition of global warming.

Climate is pretty much defined as successive ten year averages in climate. So for the period 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015 one would have a single data point for 1990, 2000, and 2010.

That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points. And no, GW does not imply <<<long laundry list of Biblical disasters

[styca]

Apologies, I'll concede the point. It doesn't mean year to year, it does indeed mean longer term patterns.

The point about warming stands though. GW doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time. It means more extreme weather, due in large part to the fact that hotter air holds more water. Warmer on average over time, but also more extreme.

That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points.

You're being disingenuous. I know you're smart enough not to believe that evidence for GW is simply three dots on one chart.

[Spendulus]

Apologies, I'll concede the point. It doesn't mean year to year, it does indeed mean longer term patterns.

The point about warming stands though. GW doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time. It means more extreme weather, due in large part to the fact that hotter air holds more water. Warmer on average over time, but also more extreme.

That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points.

You're being disingenuous. I know you're smart enough not to believe that evidence for GW is simply three dots on one chart.

From a viewport of climatology not weather, they are each three data points.

"Hotter air holds more water" is incorrect. Air does not "hold" water vapor. Water vapor is a gas, and it goes where it goes by way of it's own dynamics. In the atmosphere, water vapor has a partial pressure, as do other components.

All that double-talk about "more extreme weather" is pretty laughable. It's nothing but scary stories.

When dewpoint = temperature, clouds form. Where temperature = 32F, water vapor becomes ice crystals.

I'd make a joke at this point about Government manipulators trying to talk the public into believe their Government is going to roll the oceans back, but they are ....

[styca]

Apologies, I'll concede the point. It doesn't mean year to year, it does indeed mean longer term patterns.

The point about warming stands though. GW doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time. It means more extreme weather, due in large part to the fact that hotter air holds more water. Warmer on average over time, but also more extreme.

That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points.

You're being disingenuous. I know you're smart enough not to believe that evidence for GW is simply three dots on one chart.

From a viewport of climatology not weather, they are each three data points.

"Hotter air holds more water" is incorrect. Air does not "hold" water vapor. Water vapor is a gas, and it goes where it goes by way of it's own dynamics. In the atmosphere, water vapor has a partial pressure, as do other components.

Again, come on, you know full well what I mean. Whether air technically 'holds' water or not is an irrelevant distinction in this context. If you heat the air it gets hotter. If you heat water, it evaporates. The more heat the more the evaporation. Where does it evaporate to? Upwards, into the air. Amongst the atoms and molecules that comprise the air, whatever. The hotter the air, the more moisture it contains / has alongside it. Globally, on average. If you don't believe me, then boil a kettle.

[BADecker]

Apologies, I'll concede the point. It doesn't mean year to year, it does indeed mean longer term patterns.

The point about warming stands though. GW doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time. It means more extreme weather, due in large part to the fact that hotter air holds more water. Warmer on average over time, but also more extreme.

That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points.

You're being disingenuous. I know you're smart enough not to believe that evidence for GW is simply three dots on one chart.

From a viewport of climatology not weather, they are each three data points.

"Hotter air holds more water" is incorrect. Air does not "hold" water vapor. Water vapor is a gas, and it goes where it goes by way of it's own dynamics. In the atmosphere, water vapor has a partial pressure, as do other components.

Again, come on, you know full well what I mean. Whether air technically 'holds' water or not is an irrelevant distinction in this context. If you heat the air it gets hotter. If you heat water, it evaporates. The more heat the more the evaporation. Where does it evaporate to? Upwards, into the air. Amongst the atoms and molecules that comprise the air, whatever. The hotter the air, the more moisture it contains / has alongside it. Globally, on average. If you don't believe me, then boil a kettle.

More water in the atmosphere is a good thing. When cosmic rays hit it, it turns into H2O2 which kills off all kinds of microbes in water on the land, thereby purifying the water so people can drink it and swim in it. It also kills off microbes in people so they don't have to waste money on doctors.

[Spendulus]

...
Again, come on, you know full well what I mean. Whether air technically 'holds' water or not is an irrelevant distinction in this context. If you heat the air it gets hotter. If you heat water, it evaporates. The more heat the more the evaporation. Where does it evaporate to? Upwards, into the air. Amongst the atoms and molecules that comprise the air, whatever. The hotter the air, the more moisture it contains / has alongside it. Globally, on average. If you don't believe me, then boil a kettle.

If that's an answer on an exam to "Describe the hydrologic cycle" it's not going to get a passing grade. But leave it to the propagandists of global warming to debase and destroy basic earth science concepts for their own political goals.

How much additional water vapor air of any given temperature may gain is based on the absolute humidity. If that is 100%, air of ANY temperature will hold zero additional water vapor. If a mass of air at 100% humidity is cooled slightly then water will tumble out as rain.

In a planetary atmosphere cooler = lower and warmer = higher. (Basic chemstry/physics, p=t) But when a planetary gas envelope expands due to increased heat it presents a larger radiative surface to space, and loses that heat faster. Of course there is one important presumption there, which is that cloud cover for the two cases is the same. However, cloud cover varies as a part of the dynamics of hydrology. Slight changes in cloud cover are more significant than slight changes in carbon dioxide.

When you say "you know full well what I mean" are you saying you don't possess the basic concepts of meteorology to explain weather?

But you'd lecture people on global warming...how about just stop pushing junk science, period?

[styca]

Okay, you have some air with some water "in" it. Inverted commas so we don't get drawn into that technicality again.
The air has a certain relative humidity.
You increase the temperature of the air without changing the quantity of water "in" it.
Relative humidity drops, yes?
Because warm air has the potential to "hold" more water than does cooler air.

The calculation for absolute humidity is different, this does not take temperature into consideration. Which coinidentally is what you're doing.

[Spendulus]

Okay, you have some air with some water "in" it. Inverted commas so we don't get drawn into that technicality again.
The air has a certain relative humidity.
You increase the temperature of the air without changing the quantity of water "in" it.
Relative humidity drops, yes?
Because warm air has the potential to "hold" more water than does cooler air.

The calculation for absolute humidity is different, this does not take temperature into consideration. Which coinidentally is what you're doing.

You've described a scenario that is rather nonsensical.

The air has a certain relative humidity.
You increase the temperature of the air without changing the quantity of water "in" it.
Relative humidity drops, yes?

No. When you "add heat to it" that body of air rises in the atmosphere. As it rises it expands and p=t, right? But then water condenses and falls out or not.
The resulting condition is not that "relative humidity drops," but that a new set of equilibrium conditions are reached.

What you described would be true in conditions with an enclosed and trapped body of air such as a building where the air conditioner broke.

In a planetary atmosphere every molecule has energy of type position and type kinetic and total energy = p + k. If you add energy you affect both components.

[styca]

Okay, so you're saying it's impossible for air temperature on the surface of the Earth to increase, right? Because hot air just rises and the atmosphere gets bigger?

[Spendulus]

Okay, so you're saying it's impossible for air temperature on the surface of the Earth to increase, right? Because hot air just rises and the atmosphere gets bigger?

I've only described the atmosphere. To figure the effects of <<whatever>> on it, you'd need to start with a vertical column of air, 14.7 psi at the base, perhaps 0.1 psi at the top, and gravity. Not a trapped volume.

Then you'd examine that long vertical cone, under different conditions. With particular attention to how it radiates IR into space.

It's fair to say that for an amount of new energy injected into that column, half would become potential energy and half kinetic. Hence the column would expand. But assume in that column that a mass of heated saturated air surges upward, finding its equilibrium conditions. It sits there producing rain. That's a massive heat release at the stratospheric level. Heat release to space, right?

[styca]

No.

Some radiative heat out into space, sure. But the air "contains" greenhouse gases, including water vapour.

So as the temperature increases, the Earth "tries" to radiate more heat out into space, yes, but the increasing temperature means more greenhouse gases (including water vapour), which trap more of that heat and prevent it from escaping.

[Spendulus]

No.

Some radiative heat out into space, sure. But the air "contains" greenhouse gases, including water vapour.

So as the temperature increases, the Earth "tries" to radiate more heat out into space, yes, but the increasing temperature means more greenhouse gases (including water vapour), which trap more of that heat and prevent it from escaping.

the Earth "tries" to radiate more heat out into space
Trap heat? p=t
It most certainly does radiate more heat out into space, when it has more heat to radiate...

Half the energy is potential. The only part that can be radiated is the remaining half which is kinetic and generates IR...

Increasing temp means more greenhouse gases (including  water vapor)

No it does not. The water is part of the hydrologic CYCLE.

Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.

[styca]

It most certainly does radiate more heat out into space, when it has more heat to radiate...

Yes in absolute terms, no as a percentage of its total heat.

Increasing temp means more greenhouse gases (including  water vapor)

No it does not. The water is part of the hydrologic CYCLE.

Yes, it cycles round. It's just there's more of it evaporating and raining out due to global warming.

Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.

Yes, higher humidity due to more evaporation due to higher temperatures. Yes, it rains out. More rain as a consequence of global warming.

[ðºÞæ]

Global Warming Real?

No, you can not nether destroy or create only transform / move.
Different regions gain others lose depending on the amount of concrete and bitumen put in place which act as a storage medium (same principle as storage heaters).

[styca]

Global Warming Real?

No, you can not nether destroy or create only transform / move.
Different regions gain others lose depending on the amount of concrete and bitumen put in place which act as a storage medium (same principle as storage heaters).

Global warming is real. You can't say it's not real because energy can't be created, just transformed or moved - that doesn't make any sense!
The energy comes from the Sun. Some of that energy is radiated away from the Earth and into space. The greenhouse effect means that more of that heat is retained and less is radiated to space. The Earth gets hotter.

[BADecker]

Global Warming Real?

No, you can not nether destroy or create only transform / move.
Different regions gain others lose depending on the amount of concrete and bitumen put in place which act as a storage medium (same principle as storage heaters).

After studying a little, I have come to understand that global warming is real. But in the last 25 years, the rate of GW has been decreasing. And the amount of GW has always been insignificant anyway. It looks like we are headed for an ice age time that has been predicted since the 1980's and earlier... much longer than the GW alarmists have been plying their trade.

[Spendulus]

Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.

Yes, higher humidity due to more evaporation due to higher temperatures. Yes, it rains out. More rain as a consequence of global warming.

I guess then that higher amount of water in the air will subtract from that sea level rise problema.

More rain sounds basically good to me.

I'm sure you have figured out some way it's bad?

[styca]

Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.

Yes, higher humidity due to more evaporation due to higher temperatures. Yes, it rains out. More rain as a consequence of global warming.

I guess then that higher amount of water in the air will subtract from that sea level rise problema.

More rain sounds basically good to me.

I'm sure you have figured out some way it's bad?

Haha, yes I have
Yes, a higher amount of water in the air would mean lower sea levels - were it not for all the melting ice everywhere. The way we're heading, in some years' time the north pole might be totally ice-free in summer.

[Spendulus]

Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.

Yes, higher humidity due to more evaporation due to higher temperatures. Yes, it rains out. More rain as a consequence of global warming.

I guess then that higher amount of water in the air will subtract from that sea level rise problema.

More rain sounds basically good to me.

I'm sure you have figured out some way it's bad?

Haha, yes I have
Yes, a higher amount of water in the air would mean lower sea levels - were it not for all the melting ice everywhere. The way we're heading, in some years' time the north pole might be totally ice-free in summer.

Well, you are going to have a difficult time arguing that's a bad thing.

I'm thinking ... Eskimo girls in bikinis!

[styca]

The scariest part is the areas of the globe that are already hot that will get hotter still, pushing the limit of human survivability. We are close already in places to temperatures where the human body cannot cool itself.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/heatwave-unsurvivable-climate-change-india-pakistan-bangladesh-2100-global-warming-a7874016.html