Water, weather and climate.

[Kathryn]

Were you told why we were headed for an ice age, so you could evaluate the evidence pro and con for yourself?
The cooling threat was mainly a product of the tabloid press.

I don't believe the near-future, anthropogenic ice-age threat was ever a widely held scientific view, save for a possible nuclear Winter. I think the cooling threat was mainly being spread by the tabloid press.

Serious scientific warnings of anthropogenic warming appeared in the '70s, but were soon suppressed by those who found them inconvenient.
Today, the evidence has become overwhelming, and acceptance of warming has become almost universal amongst the scientifically literate.

We can track regional climate back for tens of millions of years.

First of all, to be very clear, I never said that climate change isn't happening. Surely it is. But I'd like to know more about how it's tracked.

Secondly, I was told this when I was probably too young to evaluate the evidence pro and con for myself. I was told this repeatedly but I was pretty young. Like under 12 or so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First of all, to be very clear, I never said that climate change isn't happening. Surely it is. But I'd like to know more about how it's tracked.

Predictive models using physics / chemistry / climate knowledge. Which are then supported by year over year actual measurements and statistical data.

That burning fossil fuels en mass was going to have detrimental effect on climate was already hypothesized pretty much as soon as we started burning them.
And we have known with reasonable certainty what the outcome of this use of fossil fuels was going to be since the 1950s.

It really is nothing new. So much so that I'm baffled that now, 70 years later, it supposedly is still a "controversial" topic among the general population.
Clearly the oil lobby has done a great job in muddying the waters with their propaganda.

The scientific consensus and demonstrability of climate change as a direct result of co2 and methane pumping into the atmosphere by human civilization has been there for 60-70 years now. And ever since it's only ever been confirmed further. Scientifically, there really is no question, no doubt at all. It's as certain as germs causing disease.

Secondly, I was told this when I was probably too young to evaluate the evidence pro and con for myself. I was told this repeatedly but I was pretty young. Like under 12 or so.

Exactly. That's how long this has been known. Go figure.

 

[wellwisher]

Most of the natural variables are known, fairly regular, and predictable, so their effects can be modeled. Irregular factors like ice ages are gradual enough that their effects can be tracked over decades/centuries, isolated from other variables, and factored in to the model.
Things like el niño or la niña are less predictable individually, but averaging over centuries can yield a usable pattern.
Sudden, upredictable events like volcanism or meteorite impacts leave clear geological footprints, so effects can be isolated from other variables and factored in.

Where the problem appears is the manmade assumption; human climate change, is still on its first cycle. ever, and has nothing to be averaged with. This claim has never happened before, real or imaginary. The first test of this theory is not done, and we have not even started a second series of tests for scientific falsification and verification. It is like running to production with cold fusion after one claim, with no time for falsification. If anything any attempt at falsification makes you as denier. This is part of a pattern of liberal word games scams, to silence people, with insults, who seek the truth, and attempt science falsification. That card has been played too many times.

There is always built in bias, if you have a single example of a phenomena, like man made anything and claim this is a done deal. As an analogy, say El Niño was as new as the manmade assumption, and last year, which was among the hottest on record due to El Niño, was all we had. Wouldn't that one event for this natural phenomena drown out manmade and become the new sensation? But, since this has been around for 4 centuries, with ups and downs, we can ignore that one experiment assumption with an average.

Manmade can appear to drown out all the others, since they are averages over centuries and longer, and not one spike, by ignoring the philosophy of science and the need for second round independent tests for falsification. The denial label and consensus of science, is very much like the 51 Swamp Intel Expert consensus, saying the Hunter Biden Laptop was Russian Disinformation. It successfully manipulated the truth to steal the throne. Even now with the truth; laptop is real, those who accused others of denying Russian Disinformation, are still in denial.

Explain why man made climate change get to avoid falsification by making denial taboo?

 

[Valjean]

Where the problem appears is the manmade assumption; human climate change, is still on its first cycle. ever, and has nothing to be averaged with. This claim has never happened before, real or imaginary. The first test of this theory is not done, and we have not even started a second series of tests for scientific falsification and verification. It is like running to production with cold fusion after one claim, with no time for falsification. If anything any attempt at falsification makes you as denier. This is part of a pattern of liberal word games scams, to silence people, with insults, who seek the truth, and attempt science falsification. That card has been played too many times.

The effects of increased greenhouse gasses are known and demonstrated, both currently and in past æons. This has happened before. Only the source is new.
"Liberal word game scams?" Why liberal, and how is it a scam? Science is the basis of this whole anthropogenic climate change subject. It's science that's proclaiming it, and, being science, invites falsification. The only plot or scam here is the corporate denialism that's been going on for decades.

Explain why man made climate change get to avoid falsification by making denial taboo?

Climate change is well documented by now. The causes are exactly as predicted. ↑ greenhouse gasses → ↑ atmospheric heating. The source of the gasses is known.
And again, falsification of hypotheses is part of the scientific process. Fire away.

 

[Ebionite]

Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age

Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age

Recent studies have provided evidence, based on analyses of instrumental measurements of the last seven decades, for a unidirectional, potentially causal link between temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) as the effect. In the most recent study, this finding was...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Regiomontanus]

Water is key to the earth being warm and inhabitable. I am concerned that the current climate models, that fixate on a few green house gases, but does not also stress the importance of water, is half baked and misleading.

For example, water is the only natural substance on earth that exist in all three phases at the same time; gas, liquid and solid. Green house gases, besides water, are one trick ponies; only gases. They lack all the extra features of water, by also being a liquid and a solid. These extra phases bring extra things to the climate table. Water vapor absorbs more heat over a wider spectrum than does CO2. It there was no water in the atmosphere, the earth would freeze, with only CO2, N2 and O2. Clouds, which are part gas and part liquid reverse this, helping cool the solar heating.

For example, hurricanes, which are very powerful weather events, are connected to the phase change of water from gas to liquid. Gaseous water takes up about 1000 time's more volume than does liquid water. When lot of water vapor; gas, condenses into rain; liquid, a vacuum is created in the local atmosphere and a low pressure area forms. This low pressure can then pull more moist air into the atmospheric void, for a self feeding storm.

CO2 is stuck as a gas and is not part of these daily weather dynamics. All the high and low pressure systems in the earth's weather are connect to liquid to gas and gas to liquid phase transitions of water. Cloud, which are the bridge for the transition of water vapor to liquid water, can block the sun and bring down cool water and ice to help offset and cool the earth; hail in the summer.



One of the key solid state tricks of water, that also allows our planet not to become an ice ball, is the unique property of solid water expanding when it freezes. This is the most commonly known anomaly of water, that we all have seen; ice cubes in a drink. Most materials in the universe contract when they freeze into a solid. What this expanding of freezing water brings to the table, is it prevents the oceans from freezing solid, preventing the earth from becoming a cold ice ball.

If water contracted when it froze, like most materials, as the early winter water chilled, the cold water would sink downward by convection as warmer water rose up by convection. Once the surface water froze, it too would sink, exposing more liquid water to the surface cold, while snowing down ice, sealing the bottom, that would kill the fish. Over time, the snow and ice on the bottom of the water, would accumulate to where the summers would not be able to melt it, since the warm water of summer would float on the surface and not sink.

However, since water will expand when it freezes, you get an igloo affect that keeps the cold on the surface so it can be reversed by summer. Water has a density maximum at 4C. This is another anomaly of water. At 4C water will expand, whether you chill it or heat it at 4C, since 4C is the maximum density. In the winter, we will also get an initial cold water convection, until the surface water drops to below 4C. The even older 3C water will want to float on the 4C water, ands then freeze to becomes a solid that floats as ice, glaciers and ice bergs. This igloo affect keeps the bulk oceans always above freezing, with the summer heat able to catch up and melt the cold stored in the surface ice.

An important colligative property of water is connected to freeing point depression, which occurs in the salty oceans. The 4C is for pure water, with this number lower in the oceans, than in fresh water lakes. The oceans shifts the density maximum curve downward; lower temperature, allowing the cold to have more affect. However, water still expands, with the igloo affect still active.

When the glaciers melt and fresh water is added to the oceans, since fresh water is lighter; no salt, The freeing point depression reverses causing the igloo affect to occur sooner, so the oceans can warm a few degrees over time. We may be able to cool the earth simply by mixing the surface ocean water from the glacier melt, with the denser deeper ocean water, to reverse the freezing point depression on the surface. This will not require any major change to culture other than large pumps for recirculation and mixing.

I always appreciate the time and effort you put into your posts. But here you are horribly misrepresenting the state of atmospheric modeling. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that this is because you do not fully understand the science vs. being dishonest.

Anyway, as has been pointed out here already, water is certainly a component in all modern models.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Climate change is well documented by now. The causes are exactly as predicted. ↑ greenhouse gasses → ↑ atmospheric heating. The source of the gasses is known.
And again, falsification of hypotheses is part of the scientific process. Fire away.

Yes, in fact without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature of our planet would be right around 0 F. So obviously - this is such basic physics - the more greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere, the warmer the temp.

 

[wellwisher]

Yes, in fact without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature of our planet would be right around 0 F. So obviously - this is such basic physics - the more greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere, the warmer the temp.

If there was no water on the earth, the temperature would be 155F.

I always appreciate the time and effort you put into your posts. But here you are horribly misrepresenting the state of atmospheric modeling. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that this is because you do not fully understand the science vs. being dishonest.

Anyway, as has been pointed out here already, water is certainly a component in all modern models.

Thanks.

Water is not a one trick pony and is not only within the atmosphere. Liquid Water on land and within vegetation has a cooling effect. Water in the atmosphere has a warming effect. Water as solid; ice, reflects solar heat. Water in more exotic phases inside the crust of earth; hydrothermal or supercritical water can grind down organic chemical all the way to CO2. My guess is supercritical water below the crust can also generates CO2 from fossil fuels type chemicals. There are also supercritical water processes to make Hydrogen from waste paper; wood.

All I am saying is the models are cute but not sophisticated enough to deal with these extra variables. How can you hold these all constant to get such a precise manmade CO2 contribution, since all these are more complex than one trick pony CO2. I used to environmental remediation development and supercritical water was a way to break down cancer causing chemicals to CO2. Water does not need life to make CO2 out of organic waste.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...afe_Method_for_the_Disposal_of_Organic_Wastes

 

[Magic Man]

If there was no water on the earth, the temperature would be 155F.


Thanks.

Water is not a one trick pony and is not only within the atmosphere. Liquid Water on land and within vegetation has a cooling effect. Water in the atmosphere has a warming effect. Water as solid; ice, reflects solar heat. Water in more exotic phases inside the crust of earth; hydrothermal or supercritical water can grind down organic chemical all the way to CO2. My guess is supercritical water below the crust can also generates CO2 from fossil fuels type chemicals. There are also supercritical water processes to make Hydrogen from waste paper; wood.

All I am saying is the models are cute but not sophisticated enough to deal with these extra variables. How can you hold these all constant to get such a precise manmade CO2 contribution, since all these are more complex than one trick pony CO2. I used to environmental remediation development and supercritical water was a way to break down cancer causing chemicals to CO2. Water does not need life to make CO2 out of organic waste.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...afe_Method_for_the_Disposal_of_Organic_Wastes

I just happen to be watching this video right now:

The models are indeed sophisticated enough to deal with all the variables you can throw at them. I'd suggest actually learning about climate change and how they research and track it. This video is a good start, since it starts with the very basics of how scientists have determined rising temperatures and CO2's connection (and in a humorous way). It even specifies how they narrowed it down to CO2.

 

[wellwisher]

I can agree that there is global warming and climate change, since this is normal for the earth and the earth has done this many times in the past. We are at the end of a climate warmup that began when the oceans were 400 feet lower; descending sine wave. Manmade is new and if true is still in its first occurrence and has yet to be verified with a second experiment.

The analogy is one team said they had preformed cold fusion. Even if this was true, science did not just run with that, but took the time to try to duplicate this result. You guys are skipping the second occurrence step of verification. Natural has many occurrences and is therefore a natural assumption is more scientifically valid.

Why this is important is is the current models are not fully rational, but are statistical empirical. The problem with statistical empirical and one occurrence can be describe with the analogy of Schrödinger's Cat.

Schrödinger's Cat, a thought experiment, states that if you seal a cat in a box with something that can eventually kill it, you won't know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box. So, until you open the box and observe the cat, the cat is simultaneously dead and alive.

The black box of statistics does not allow for dead or alive, but a blend of both. One occurrence in a black box will not settle this.

Since we only have less than one full occurrence, that is not even complete, and verified with a second, we cannot be 100% sure this theory is dead or alive. However, the political party that brings us fake news wants to convinced us it is alive and based on risk and fear. We are supposed to give that the benefit of the doubt, since alive and fear means risk. Politicians and world leaders are ready to become oppressive based on fear and Schrödinger's Cat. Politics also uses the black box and Schrödinger's Cat, allowing for two opposite POV to both appear alive and dead to each other based on statistics and polling.

I would be more comfortable if the science was not science lite; black box statistical, but used rational models. If the science is not that advanced we need to have a second opinion, before the politicians are able to act on anything. I do not care so much about science lite, but politicians also use the same math and Schrödinger's Cat, with the Left notorious for bad calls.

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.

This is why you need a second opinion so we get past simultaneity and ambiguity that plays into the hands of con artists.

Does the science use a rational model; cause and effect or is it a statistical model and a black box? If there is a black box, where is the second occurrence so we can narrow down whether the cat alive or dead and not leaving it hanging for crooked politicians? These are rules of real science. At least I have proposed an integrated water model that connects rationally, that can operate with or without manmade to avoid the black box opening for scam artists. But since I needed to open the box to see, it disqualifies me based on black box rules. So I disqualify the black box approach based no one occurrence and Schrödinger's Cat. Check mate if you are being honest to science.