Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[exchemist]

--and the label for the Y axis shows that all that is being portrayed are anomalies. Sure, they say that the anomalies are variances from some temperature, and that temperature (or temperatures) is (are) not given. All we have are anomalies, not temperatures.

If we heat up a pan of water to an anomaly of 35 degrees, will it boil? We don't know.

Are you serious? These are temperature differences from a mean.

If you heat up a pan of water to a temperature difference from 0C of 100degC , then sure, under 1atm pressure, it will boil.

If your body temperature is more than 1 C deg above 37C, you have a fever.

Do you find the concept of temperature differences hard to comprehend?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there's any truth to it we should be able to ask about supporting numbers, but if it's too complicated to look into then the statement is empty rhetoric because the topic is "complicated".

Wait a second. Are you talking about the data where those averages come from? There are on the order of 32,000 weather stages that are used for this data, and who knows how many times a day that they are accessed and then you are talking about decades of data. That could easily be billions of pieces of data.

What would you do if someone gave you those files? Are you going to go through by hand and calculate an average?

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[wellwisher]

Interesting discussion, and my thinking is you don't know what mass is heating --iow how much of the ocean and how deep in the land is being heated. Important facts:

• Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10 18 kg
• Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10 21 kg

--which means the mass of the ocean is almost a thousand time that of the atmosphere which means we can ignore the greenhouse effect on the atmosphere if the heating/cooling of the ocean is connected.

To me, the entire AGW narrative can only make sense if we've identified the mass that's heating. If you know please share. If you don't know then please consider that your belief is something that you don't know what it is may be heating from the greenhouse. IOW, if your understanding is tenuous then let's be clear about it.

Given that the surface area of Earth is about 197 million square miles (510 million square kilometers), there's around 37.5 million-billion gallons of water in the atmosphere, Fabry said. If all of this mass were to fall at once, it would raise the global ocean level by about 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters), he added.

Atmospheric water is unique in that it can exist as a gas, liquid and solid, at earth surface and atmospheric conditions. Water is the only substance on earth that does this. As we place water in extreme environments other properties will appear, often anomalous.

The greenhouse gases are a one trick pony; always gas at earth conditions. Water through its hydrogen bonding nature is the most anomalous natural substance in nature. Below are 14 of the 75 or so anomalies of water. Water needs to be the center piece for understanding climate since water is the dynamic gas of the atmosphere and oceans, while CO2 is passive.

From Water structure and science

Water phase anomalies​

1. Water has an unusually high melting point. [Explanation]
2. Water has an unusually high boiling point. [Explanation]
3. Water has an unusually high critical point. [Explanation]
4. Solid water exists in a wider variety of stable (and metastable) crystal and amorphous structures than other materials. [Explanation]
5. The thermal conductivity, shear modulus, and transverse sound velocity of ice reduce with increasing pressure. [Explanation]
6. The structure of liquid water changes at high pressure. [Explanation]
7. Supercooled water has two phases and a second critical point at about -91 °C. [Explanation]
8. Liquid water is easily supercooled but glassified with difficulty. [Explanation]
9. Liquid water exists at extremely low temperatures and freezes on heating. [Explanation]
10. Liquid water may be easily superheated. [Explanation]
11. Hot water may freeze faster than cold water; the Mpemba effect. [Explanation]
12. Warm water vibrates longer than cold water. [Explanation]
13. Water molecules shrink as the temperature rises and expand as the pressure increases. [Explanation]
14. A liquid-liquid transition occurs at about 330 K. [Explanation]

[Back to Top ]​

---

Anomalous properties of water
​

​

 

[exchemist]

Atmospheric water is unique in that it can exist as a gas, liquid and solid, at earth surface and atmospheric conditions. Water is the only substance on earth that does this. As we place water in extreme environments other properties will appear, often anomalous.

The greenhouse gases are a one trick pony; always gas at earth conditions. Water through its hydrogen bonding nature is the most anomalous natural substance in nature. Below are 14 of the 75 or so anomalies of water. Water needs to be the center piece for understanding climate since water is the dynamic gas of the atmosphere and oceans, while CO2 is passive.

From Water structure and science

Water phase anomalies​

1. Water has an unusually high melting point. [Explanation]
2. Water has an unusually high boiling point. [Explanation]
3. Water has an unusually high critical point. [Explanation]
4. Solid water exists in a wider variety of stable (and metastable) crystal and amorphous structures than other materials. [Explanation]
5. The thermal conductivity, shear modulus, and transverse sound velocity of ice reduce with increasing pressure. [Explanation]
6. The structure of liquid water changes at high pressure. [Explanation]
7. Supercooled water has two phases and a second critical point at about -91 °C. [Explanation]
8. Liquid water is easily supercooled but glassified with difficulty. [Explanation]
9. Liquid water exists at extremely low temperatures and freezes on heating. [Explanation]
10. Liquid water may be easily superheated. [Explanation]
11. Hot water may freeze faster than cold water; the Mpemba effect. [Explanation]
12. Warm water vibrates longer than cold water. [Explanation]
13. Water molecules shrink as the temperature rises and expand as the pressure increases. [Explanation]
14. A liquid-liquid transition occurs at about 330 K. [Explanation]

[Back to Top ]​

---

Anomalous properties of water
​

​

Readers, don’t worry, this is just @wellwisher ’s well known water mysticism coming out.

It is the case of course that evaporation and condensation of water is a key driver of weather systems and, long-term, of climate. Where climate change is concerned, one crucial role played by water vapour is that, like CO2, it absorbs IR radiation and is thus a greenhouse gas in its own right. The amount it absorbs has contributed to the historical balance of climatic conditions. But adding CO2 alters the equilibrium between evaporation and condensation, by warming the oceans and lower atmosphere so that the amount of water vapour increases, which then amplifies the greenhouse effect due to CO2, until condensation leads to a new, higher, i.e. warmer equilibrium level.

In summary, water vapour amplifies the greenhouse effect of CO2.

 

[wellwisher]

What is the affect of CO2 forming carbonic acid within atmospheric water. Cold liquid water droplet exist in clouds which can accept CO2 to form carbonic acid.

Despite much effort, aqueous carbonic acid (H2CO3) remains poorly characterized because it is very short-lived. We describe the detection and characterization of aqueous H2CO3 by X-ray absorption spectroscopy, wherein protonation of a bicarbonate solution continuously generates the acid under ambient conditions.

Would this alter the absorption spectra of CO2? It is usually shown for CO2 gas.

If CO2 enters liquid water, it changes from a gas by being chemically modified by water. This would give the one trick pony; CO2, a second aqueous based liquid trick. Liquid water is not the same as gaseous water, so the same may be true of liquid state carbonic acid.

As CO2 levels of the atmosphere rise and temperature increases, more water enters the atmosphere for CO2 capture, altering the spectral properties of some of the CO2. It not clear if this is enhanced or downgraded.

I know that bicarbonate ions; CO3-2, is represented as a resonance structure for all three CO bonds, with the extra electrons of oxygen sharing with all three bonds. This makes the vibration of the CO2 bonds cycle between C-O and C=O damping degrees of freedom and energy levels. In crowed liquid water, the CO2 does not have the same degrees of freedom as it does as a free gas.

If a water vapor molecule and a CO2 gas molecule were to hook up to single carbonic acid molecule, there is drive to release protons, because we have just formed an acid in aqueous vapor space. The H+ or hydrogen proton released by the carbonic acid, is considered extremely kosmotropic, meaning it will increase order in water compare to pure water. This may encourage condensation in the local water vapor; carbonate acid seed.

Fast rising and forming clouds, such as thunder clouds, tend to be positively charged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the affect of CO2 forming carbonic acid within atmospheric water. Cold liquid water droplet exist in clouds which can accept CO2 to form carbonic acid.


Would this alter the absorption spectra of CO2? It is usually shown for CO2 gas.

If CO2 enters liquid water, it changes from a gas by being chemically modified by water. This would give the one trick pony; CO2, a second aqueous based liquid trick. Liquid water is not the same as gaseous water, so the same may be true of liquid state carbonic acid.

As CO2 levels of the atmosphere rise and temperature increases, more water enters the atmosphere for CO2 capture, altering the spectral properties of some of the CO2. It not clear if this is enhanced or downgraded.

I know that bicarbonate ions; CO3-2, is represented as a resonance structure for all three CO bonds, with the extra electrons of oxygen sharing with all three bonds. This makes the vibration of the CO2 bonds cycle between C-O and C=O damping degrees of freedom and energy levels. In crowed liquid water, the CO2 does not have the same degrees of freedom as it does as a free gas.

If a water vapor molecule and a CO2 gas molecule were to hook up to single carbonic acid molecule, there is drive to release protons, because we have just formed an acid in aqueous vapor space. The H+ or hydrogen proton released by the carbonic acid, is considered extremely kosmotropic, meaning it will increase order in water compare to pure water. This may encourage condensation in the local water vapor; carbonate acid seed.

Fast rising and forming clouds, such as thunder clouds, tend to be positively charged.

Please quit grasping at straws.

 

[Copernicus]

What is the affect of CO2 forming carbonic acid within atmospheric water. Cold liquid water droplet exist in clouds which can accept CO2 to form carbonic acid.


Would this alter the absorption spectra of CO2? It is usually shown for CO2 gas.

If CO2 enters liquid water, it changes from a gas by being chemically modified by water. This would give the one trick pony; CO2, a second aqueous based liquid trick. Liquid water is not the same as gaseous water, so the same may be true of liquid state carbonic acid.

As CO2 levels of the atmosphere rise and temperature increases, more water enters the atmosphere for CO2 capture, altering the spectral properties of some of the CO2. It not clear if this is enhanced or downgraded.

I know that bicarbonate ions; CO3-2, is represented as a resonance structure for all three CO bonds, with the extra electrons of oxygen sharing with all three bonds. This makes the vibration of the CO2 bonds cycle between C-O and C=O damping degrees of freedom and energy levels. In crowed liquid water, the CO2 does not have the same degrees of freedom as it does as a free gas.

If a water vapor molecule and a CO2 gas molecule were to hook up to single carbonic acid molecule, there is drive to release protons, because we have just formed an acid in aqueous vapor space. The H+ or hydrogen proton released by the carbonic acid, is considered extremely kosmotropic, meaning it will increase order in water compare to pure water. This may encourage condensation in the local water vapor; carbonate acid seed.

Fast rising and forming clouds, such as thunder clouds, tend to be positively charged.

Please quit grasping at straws.

It never ceases to amaze me how doggedly science deniers posture themselves as knowledgeable enough about the science to do their "own research" while simultaneously ignoring the actual consensus among scientists about how the greenhouse effect works and why we are now observing unprecedented extreme weather patterns. These kinds of events were predicted by their models to take place much later in the decade, but now they realize that all the models were too conservative.

‘Get scared’: World’s scientists say disastrous climate change is here​

For the first time, the planet’s top scientists said in a monumental report released on Monday they have definitively linked greenhouse gas emissions to the type of disasters driven by a warmer climate that have touched every corner of the globe this year: extreme rainfall in Germany and China, brutal droughts in the western U.S., a record cyclone in the Philippines and compound events like the wildfires and heat waves from the Pacific Northwest to Siberia to Greece and Turkey.​

​

This is the world as it exists today, with an atmosphere 1.1 degrees Celsius hotter than it was in the pre-industrial era thanks largely to burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Even grimmer: There is no scenario in the new analysis by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the world avoids breaching the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius that the U.S., EU and several other countries have set as a target. Even the weaker 2-degree target that major polluters China and India have set as guideposts will be eclipsed unless greenhouse gas emissions peak by mid-century.​

 

[exchemist]

What is the affect of CO2 forming carbonic acid within atmospheric water. Cold liquid water droplet exist in clouds which can accept CO2 to form carbonic acid.


Would this alter the absorption spectra of CO2? It is usually shown for CO2 gas.

If CO2 enters liquid water, it changes from a gas by being chemically modified by water. This would give the one trick pony; CO2, a second aqueous based liquid trick. Liquid water is not the same as gaseous water, so the same may be true of liquid state carbonic acid.

As CO2 levels of the atmosphere rise and temperature increases, more water enters the atmosphere for CO2 capture, altering the spectral properties of some of the CO2. It not clear if this is enhanced or downgraded.

I know that bicarbonate ions; CO3-2, is represented as a resonance structure for all three CO bonds, with the extra electrons of oxygen sharing with all three bonds. This makes the vibration of the CO2 bonds cycle between C-O and C=O damping degrees of freedom and energy levels. In crowed liquid water, the CO2 does not have the same degrees of freedom as it does as a free gas.

If a water vapor molecule and a CO2 gas molecule were to hook up to single carbonic acid molecule, there is drive to release protons, because we have just formed an acid in aqueous vapor space. The H+ or hydrogen proton released by the carbonic acid, is considered extremely kosmotropic, meaning it will increase order in water compare to pure water. This may encourage condensation in the local water vapor; carbonate acid seed.

Fast rising and forming clouds, such as thunder clouds, tend to be positively charged.

The effect is bugger all. The solubility of CO2 in water is not high and the condensed water in clouds does not provide a very significant sink for it. And in the gas phase, CO2 and H2O do not react appreciably to produce H2CO3.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Atmospheric water is unique in that it can exist as a gas, liquid and solid, at earth surface and atmospheric conditions. Water is the only substance on earth that does this. As we place water in extreme environments other properties will appear, often anomalous.

The greenhouse gases are a one trick pony; always gas at earth conditions. Water through its hydrogen bonding nature is the most anomalous natural substance in nature. Below are 14 of the 75 or so anomalies of water. Water needs to be the center piece for understanding climate since water is the dynamic gas of the atmosphere and oceans, while CO2 is passive.

From Water structure and science

Water phase anomalies​

1. Water has an unusually high melting point. [Explanation]
2. Water has an unusually high boiling point. [Explanation]
3. Water has an unusually high critical point. [Explanation]
4. Solid water exists in a wider variety of stable (and metastable) crystal and amorphous structures than other materials. [Explanation]
5. The thermal conductivity, shear modulus, and transverse sound velocity of ice reduce with increasing pressure. [Explanation]
6. The structure of liquid water changes at high pressure. [Explanation]
7. Supercooled water has two phases and a second critical point at about -91 °C. [Explanation]
8. Liquid water is easily supercooled but glassified with difficulty. [Explanation]
9. Liquid water exists at extremely low temperatures and freezes on heating. [Explanation]
10. Liquid water may be easily superheated. [Explanation]
11. Hot water may freeze faster than cold water; the Mpemba effect. [Explanation]
12. Warm water vibrates longer than cold water. [Explanation]
13. Water molecules shrink as the temperature rises and expand as the pressure increases. [Explanation]
14. A liquid-liquid transition occurs at about 330 K. [Explanation]

[Back to Top ]​

---

Anomalous properties of water
​

​

Thanks for the info, most informative.

At the same time when we say that something is a degree hotter than before, we usually have "before and after" temperatures --not an anomalies. A quick online search will yield a surface temperature for the sun (not an anomaly) with a precision to four places but not for the temp of the earths surface --which is much closer and more in the news. Somehow the reason that seems to me most consistent w/ the problems in publishing of the average earth surface temperature (not the earth surface anomaly) is that the issue is politicized.

 

[Pete in Panama]

“If there’s any truth to it”?

Do you mean you think that graph, from a government website (in fact from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) may be faked rather than based on real measurements?

Not wanting to get into a discussion over whether national governments (including ours) always tell the truth about everything, but for you I'm thinking my wording should have been "Given that the information is truthful we should be able to ask about supporting numbers, but if it's too complicated to look into then the statement is empty rhetoric because the topic is "complicated".

My hope is that might be easier to follow. Please understand that my hope here is that we can have a friendly convo. I honesty am looking for info here and I dearly want to avoid offending anyone.

 

[sayak83]

Please note what I said in the post you're replying to, that--

"...I am trying to find out how he is thinking now so I can communicate w/ him here..."​

--and how previous explanations are not what we're talking about.

Science is not an opinion piece. When it comes to most of the well understood phenomena in climate change there is an existing set of well-evidenced, well-justified explanations for them. These were presented to you before along with the justification as to why they are accepted as the best explanations by the scientific community.
Re-asking the same exact things a year later to a different poster can mean that either
a) You never really understood what was being said even though you said that you did. In that case please explain what you did not understand.
OR
b) You do not actually care about what is being said at all. Rather you are trying to find people who may not know as much about the scientific details to get a "gotcha, I win!" moments. In that case you are wasting everyones' time here.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for the info, most informative.

At the same time when we say that something is a degree hotter than before, we usually have "before and after" temperatures --not an anomalies. A quick online search will yield a surface temperature for the sun (not an anomaly) with a precision to four places but not for the temp of the earths surface --which is much closer and more in the news. Somehow the reason that seems to me most consistent w/ the problems in publishing of the average earth surface temperature (not the earth surface anomaly) is that the issue is politicized.

Nonsense. The planetary equilibrium temperature of earth is 255 K and is as well determined as the blackbody temperature of the sun. But since the earth is not a blackbody, this does not represent the surface temperature. It cannot for any non-self-luminous object, since obviously, unlike the sun, the earth does not have its own energy source and is cooler on the night side than the day side.
Planetary equilibrium temperature - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

Atmospheric water is unique in that it can exist as a gas, liquid and solid, at earth surface and atmospheric conditions. Water is the only substance on earth that does this. As we place water in extreme environments other properties will appear, often anomalous.

The greenhouse gases are a one trick pony; always gas at earth conditions. Water through its hydrogen bonding nature is the most anomalous natural substance in nature. Below are 14 of the 75 or so anomalies of water. Water needs to be the center piece for understanding climate since water is the dynamic gas of the atmosphere and oceans, while CO2 is passive.

From Water structure and science

Water phase anomalies​

1. Water has an unusually high melting point. [Explanation]
2. Water has an unusually high boiling point. [Explanation]
3. Water has an unusually high critical point. [Explanation]
4. Solid water exists in a wider variety of stable (and metastable) crystal and amorphous structures than other materials. [Explanation]
5. The thermal conductivity, shear modulus, and transverse sound velocity of ice reduce with increasing pressure. [Explanation]
6. The structure of liquid water changes at high pressure. [Explanation]
7. Supercooled water has two phases and a second critical point at about -91 °C. [Explanation]
8. Liquid water is easily supercooled but glassified with difficulty. [Explanation]
9. Liquid water exists at extremely low temperatures and freezes on heating. [Explanation]
10. Liquid water may be easily superheated. [Explanation]
11. Hot water may freeze faster than cold water; the Mpemba effect. [Explanation]
12. Warm water vibrates longer than cold water. [Explanation]
13. Water molecules shrink as the temperature rises and expand as the pressure increases. [Explanation]
14. A liquid-liquid transition occurs at about 330 K. [Explanation]

[Back to Top ]​

---

Anomalous properties of water
​

​

You think climate scientists do not understand the role of water cycle in general climate and global warming? True, there is a little bit of uncertainty on the impact of warming temperatures on cloud formation, but otherwise the role of water is well quantified and well understood.

 

[exchemist]

Not wanting to get into a discussion over whether national governments (including ours) always tell the truth about everything, but for you I'm thinking my wording should have been "Given that the information is truthful we should be able to ask about supporting numbers, but if it's too complicated to look into then the statement is empty rhetoric because the topic is "complicated".

My hope is that might be easier to follow. Please understand that my hope here is that we can have a friendly convo. I honesty am looking for info here and I dearly want to avoid offending anyone.

But no one asked you whether the US government always tells the truth about everything.

I asked you, specifically, whether you think the NOAA graph may be faked rather than being based on real measurements. Can you answer that?

 

[exchemist]

Science is not an opinion piece. When it comes to most of the well understood phenomena in climate change there is an existing set of well-evidenced, well-justified explanations for them. These were presented to you before along with the justification as to why they are accepted as the best explanations by the scientific community.
Re-asking the same exact things a year later to a different poster can mean that either
a) You never really understood what was being said even though you said that you did. In that case please explain what you did not understand.
OR
b) You do not actually care about what is being said at all. Rather you are trying to find people who may not know as much about the scientific details to get a "gotcha, I win!" moments. In that case you are wasting everyones' time here.

Are you perhaps referring to this discussion, in February this year?: The Science of Global Warming : Explained

It certainly seems to cover much the same ground, complete with the daft questions about "mass", and the insinuation that the temperature data from NOAA may be false or non-existent.

 

[sayak83]

Readers, don’t worry, this is just @wellwisher ’s well known water mysticism coming out.

It is the case of course that evaporation and condensation of water is a key driver of weather systems and, long-term, of climate. Where climate change is concerned, one crucial role played by water vapour is that, like CO2, it absorbs IR radiation and is thus a greenhouse gas in its own right. The amount it absorbs has contributed to the historical balance of climatic conditions. But adding CO2 alters the equilibrium between evaporation and condensation, by warming the oceans and lower atmosphere so that the amount of water vapour increases, which then amplifies the greenhouse effect due to CO2, until condensation leads to a new, higher, i.e. warmer equilibrium level.

In summary, water vapour amplifies the greenhouse effect of CO2.

More clarity here
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678

The water vapor feedback quantifies the change in outgoing LW and absorbed SW radiation at the top of the atmosphere due to changes in atmospheric water vapor concentration associated with a change in global mean surface temperature. It arises because water vapor absorbs both LW and SW radiation and its concentration is expected to increase exponentially with temperature. The equilibrium (saturation) concentration increases following fundamental thermodynamic theory of the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. Although concentrations are usually below saturation (relative humidity less than 100%), this difference is well understood (Sherwood, Roca, et al., 2010) and well captured by GCMs with adequate resolution (Sherwood, Ingram, et al., 2010). Increases in specific humidity in response to 1 K of warming at constant relative humidity in the middle and upper troposphere result in a greater reduction in outgoing LW radiation than similar increases in the lower troposphere due to the masking effects of overlying water vapor and clouds (Soden et al., 2008; Vial et al., 2013). A given increase in specific humidity generally has a larger impact on LW than on SW radiation. GCM simulations and observations of the seasonal cycle, interannual variability, and climate trends all exhibit relatively small changes in relative humidity with warming, and therefore large increases in specific humidity with warming (Boucher et al., 2013; Dessler & Sherwood, 2009). The agreement of observations and GCMs with expectations from basic thermodynamic theory (Romps, 2014) leads to high confidence in robustly positive water vapor feedback.

Here attached also is the list of the means and standard deviations of all types of feedbacks that understood and their level of confidence. The impact of water vapor is one of the largest and most well understood.

How to measure the expected warming from the table above.
The expected global temperature anomaly for a given forcing is given by the equation

Here Delta F is the radiative forcing (+4.00 W/m2 for doubling of CO2) and Lambda is the sum total of all feedback values (W/m2K)

Use the table to calculate the total lambda (add up from row 2 down). That is the denominator. The numerator is 4.00. Hence get the expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2.

 

[sayak83]

Are you perhaps referring to this discussion, in February this year?: The Science of Global Warming : Explained

It certainly seems to cover much the same ground, complete with the daft questions about "mass", and the insinuation that the temperature data from NOAA may be false or non-existent.

Yes. I pointed this out as well in an earlier post here.

 

[wellwisher]

It never ceases to amaze me how doggedly science deniers posture themselves as knowledgeable enough about the science to do their "own research" while simultaneously ignoring the actual consensus among scientists about how the greenhouse effect works and why we are now observing unprecedented extreme weather patterns. These kinds of events were predicted by their models to take place much later in the decade, but now they realize that all the models were too conservative.

‘Get scared’: World’s scientists say disastrous climate change is here​

For the first time, the planet’s top scientists said in a monumental report released on Monday they have definitively linked greenhouse gas emissions to the type of disasters driven by a warmer climate that have touched every corner of the globe this year: extreme rainfall in Germany and China, brutal droughts in the western U.S., a record cyclone in the Philippines and compound events like the wildfires and heat waves from the Pacific Northwest to Siberia to Greece and Turkey.​

​

This is the world as it exists today, with an atmosphere 1.1 degrees Celsius hotter than it was in the pre-industrial era thanks largely to burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Even grimmer: There is no scenario in the new analysis by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the world avoids breaching the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius that the U.S., EU and several other countries have set as a target. Even the weaker 2-degree target that major polluters China and India have set as guideposts will be eclipsed unless greenhouse gas emissions peak by mid-century.​

I thought all this could be attributed to El Niño, which was first recorded in the 1600s.

The problem is a consensus of science, is not how real or settled science is done. Settled science is done with facts and not a consensus of opinion. The consensus of opinion, ignores natural climate change factors such, as El Niño which was first record in the 1600's by fisherman, two centuries before the official climate record keeping started in the 1880's. Now manmade is in control of natural according to the consensus of opinion?

Consensus of opinion works best when evidence is selectively ignore in a black box.

 

[F1fan]

I thought all this could be attributed to El Niño, which was first recorded in the 1600s.

The problem is a consensus of science, is not how real or settled science is done. Settled science is done with facts and not a consensus of opinion. The consensus of opinion, ignores natural climate change factors such, as El Niño which was first record in the 1600's by fisherman, two centuries before the official climate record keeping started in the 1880's. Now manmade is in control of natural according to the consensus of opinion?

Expert opinion based on facts and data. Not opinions of ordinary folks like you on the internet after being exposed to right wing disinformation.

Consensus of opinion works best when evidence is selectively ignore in a black box.

This is a tactic of disinformation over climate change. You take one small sample from history and use that as an example to compare to current states of affairs. What you ignore is that these rare incidents and becoming more and more common. It is the frequency of extreme weather that is the growing concern. Florida getting hit with one major hurricane every ten years is financially recoverable. When a major hurricane hits Florida one or twice a year it won't be recoverable. As we know two insurance companies have pulled out of Florida. The cost of insurance is rising to a degree that it's not affordable, so the result will be to raise rates on your policy, and mine, and everyone else. Insurance companies need to make profits, and the costs of severe weather will fall on all of us. The more frequent the severe weather the more it costs insurance companies, and citizens out of pocket costs, plus lost wages. Think of rising prices on materials and food as there is more disruption to supply due to severe weather. I don't hear conservatives ever talk about the impact to the economy in regards to climate change. I hear about the costs to industry to clean up pollution, but not the costs of the effects of pollution down the road.

 

[wellwisher]

Readers, don’t worry, this is just @wellwisher ’s well known water mysticism coming out.

It is the case of course that evaporation and condensation of water is a key driver of weather systems and, long-term, of climate. Where climate change is concerned, one crucial role played by water vapour is that, like CO2, it absorbs IR radiation and is thus a greenhouse gas in its own right. The amount it absorbs has contributed to the historical balance of climatic conditions. But adding CO2 alters the equilibrium between evaporation and condensation, by warming the oceans and lower atmosphere so that the amount of water vapour increases, which then amplifies the greenhouse effect due to CO2, until condensation leads to a new, higher, i.e. warmer equilibrium level.

In summary, water vapour amplifies the greenhouse effect of CO2.

The water in the atmosphere is not just a gas, but also liquid and solid. High pressure weather systems are more gaseous water, while low pressure systems is more liquid and solid. Clouds are often composed of droplets of water, with the liquid state of water behaving differently than the gaseous state. Rain water is better for plants because soluble gases like O2 and CO2 will dissolve in rain water. The plants can use both. There has to be a way to bring and keep CO2 at the surface, or the plants would not have a way to get CO2 high in the atmosphere.

Pound for pound the liquid state of water has twice the heat capacity of the gas or solid. Clouds during the day, act like a thermal window keeping the solar heat out. Go outside in the sun, and wait for cloud to pass. You can feel the immediate cooling; less heat to reflect back to space at night. I live in New England. This summer had lots of clouds and rain making it a cooler than a normal summer. If the sun is heating the water in the cloud, the heat is trapped in cooler zone, that if it reaches the surface to heat solids.

High level clouds which often composed of ice crystals, reflects solar heat even better. Snow cover make things colder by reflecting the solar heat back to space.

Heating the oceans is a different dynamics than cooling the oceans. As we heat water, it expands so the warmed water wants to float. The net affect is warming the oceans is are more like a layer affect, on the surface, since the heated water will not sink due to be buoyant. Go to the beach and dive down 10 feet and it will feel cooler. This can cause a problem, since solar heat pools on the ocean surface instead of mix. This warmer layer will lose CO2 since CO2 is more soluble in cold water. Maybe we can cool the warm ocean surface layer by pumping and mixing cold water, deep down; 100Meter, onto the surface. Windmill pump platforms for solar chilling and CO2 scrubbing.

During cold; winter, cold water by being denser than warm water will sink, causing the chill to work downward. Lakes cannot freeze until the entire lake is chilled to about 4C. The colder denser surface water keeps sinking, not allowing the cold to isolate itself at the top to freeze, until about 4C. At 4C water is at maximum density, and liquid water will now expand if it gets any colder than 4C. The colder than 4C water now floats, can cool further, until ice forms. There is plenty of cold water in the oceans below the heat layer.

Heat from the bottom; from the earth instead of the sun is different. SubOcean heat rises and does not pool at the bottom. Cold would pool, but that is not a problem. Conceptually, if heat was rising from the bottom while the top is being chilled by the cold, we may not reach 4C as easy, delaying freezing. One can see this affect with spring fed lakes; input warmer water.