Record cold and snow in Brazil

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Aug 1, 2021.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. Water is. Here's the effects of the various greenhouse gases in a CLEAR (important note there) atmosphere:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It is certainly true that CO2 is the greatest _forcing_ that we are seeing (in other words, the greatest change to our atmosphere in the last 150 years or so.) But from a top level perspective, water vapor dominates. In terms of percentages of total greenhouse effect:

    Water vapor 36-72%
    Carbon dioxide 9-26%
    Methane 4-9%
    Ozone 3-7%

    The range is so wide for water because there's a lot more water in the atmosphere in some places than others. So at night in Seattle you'll get a much larger percentage of greenhouse effect from water than you will at night in the Mojave. (And if there's not a lot of water, CO2 and the other gases makes up a larger percentage of the total.)
    Walter L. Wagner and sculptor like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    I was referring to measuring temperatures from 9:00am to just before 9:00am and the bias that gives you incorrect official daily maximums for the actual day as referred to in the ABC article. In a prior post I mentioned that the only weather report from Greenland that I could find also stated that the temperatures and rainfall were measured to 9:00am, just like every official daily max/min and rainfall recorded in Australia.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    CO2 is what maintains water vapor in the atmosphere - the greenhouse effects of water vapor are side effects, feedback effects, of CO2 warming.
    Probably the extra warming from increased water vapor has been and will be a greater change than the extra from the increased CO2 alone. It's at least equivalent - most sources I run into put it at 1 to 1 in current circumstances (a one degree boost or drop from CO2 causing a one degree boost or drop from H2O).

    The point is that all the warming from water vapor is a consequence of the CO2 concentration, and varies according to that concentration. If you clean all the water vapor from the air, the CO2 will restore it and its greenhouse effects within a few weeks - maybe even days. The planet's surface temperature will hardly be affected even in the short run, and not at all in the longer term. If you clean all the CO2 from the air, the water vapor will rain and freeze out within a couple of months - the planet's surface temperature will drop below freezing, and remain there until the CO2 has been replenished somehow.

    CO2 controls the greenhouse gas warming of the surface of this planet, and has for hundreds of millions of years at least. AGW is caused by the CO2 boost. Its only apparent potential rival would be a "methane bomb" - a sudden large boost in methane that continues boosting for a long time, longer than several lifespans of methane in the air (covering the short lifespan of methane in the air) - and even that will probably be a side effect of the CO2 boost.
    Rainfall anywhere near the summit of Greenland was not measured at all. The weather stations in that region did not even have rain gauges set up.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    and then
    we have
    hydrofluorocarbons which are thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide
    escaping from the millions and millions of air conditioners in use every day

    how piggish
    to use an air conditioner for your personal comfort in a warming world

    we seem to have no shortage of compulsive idiots
    The University where my beloved spouse works just replaced the windows in her building
    ain't a single one of them that is operable
    (somehow, I had avoided associated idiocy with the word university----maybe, I'll need to change my perspective?)
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    HFCs are being phased out and replaced by refrigerants with lower greenhouse potential.

    But yes, there are many things we need to do and time is short.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. Evaporation is what maintains water vapor in the atmosphere.
    Again, no. Everything - from water vapor to CO2 to methane to ozone - plays a role in mediating the greenhouse effect. Change any of them and you will change the temperature. But water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect.
    Ah, that's why I was careful to say "clear atmosphere" above. Because when you evaporate a LOT of water, low clouds form - and low clouds cool the sunward side of the planet (via albedo change) more than they warm the dark side of the planet (through greater retention of heat) in a moist atmosphere.)
    There are a dozen ways that the greenhouse effect is maintained on Earth. CO2 is just one of them.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2021
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yep. Fortunately there are many, many orders of magnitude fewer tons of HFC's in the atmosphere than CO2. And fortunately we are in the process of replacing HFC's with refrigerants with a lower warming potential.
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    in 30 years?
    in 50 years?
    Who will turn off the air conditioner and open a window?

    How many architects will do away with inoperable windows?

    we converse
    the insanity goes on
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    The Montreal protocol was ratified in 1987 and went into effect in 1989. CFC's were immediately banned. By 1994 CFC-11 concentrations were declining. By 2004 CFC-12 concentrations were declining. As of 2020, every regulated CFC is on the decline.

    So between 5 and 15 years - if we take it as seriously as CFC's.
    No need to - if they have an A/C without warming-potential refrigerants. They can, of course, if they like. We haven't used our AC in three years.
    exchemist likes this.
  13. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    The following text is from the beginning of the link I posted originally and it talks about no previous report of rainfall at the Summit Station but does not mention the actual rainfall recorded there. This article also references several exceptional rainfall readings from other remote weather Stations although only one, that appears on the image I posted directly after the link in my original post, shows any actual rainfall figures. Also, the average rainfalls for locations around the coast, in the month of August, ranged from 20mm in the north to 35mm in the west and south.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    CO2 dominates, overwhelmingly. Examples: It controls the water vapor and much of the methane (both boost and quench, distribution and intensity), amplifies the otherwise weak Milankovitch cycles, etc.

    Without CO2 the water vapor freezes out, the methane is trapped in hydrates and other sinks, the Milankovitch cycles just warm the air a bit on the sunlit half (the northern hemisphere alternates with the southern, rather than the entire globe warming and cooling in tandem), the planet's albedo increases dramatically, and so forth. The planet's surface water freezes - "Snowball Earth". That has happened - we see it in the geological record.

    The alternation of Milankovitch cycle effects between the two poles seems to me the most often overlooked interpretation factor - without CO2 one would expect that the poles would tend to warm and cool alternately, rather than in tandem.
    Mostly as side effects of CO2 warming.
    That and condensation/precipitation rates - maintenance is a balancing of source and sink rates. Those rates are largely controlled by CO2 warming.
    You don't evaporate a lot of water for more than a few years without CO2. The water vapor feedback is not enough to maintain its own presence in the atmosphere. To a first approximation: without CO2 the planet's air and surface water freezes and stays frozen, and reflects sunlight into space rather than trapping its energy as heat.
    The existence of atmospheric water vapor in significant amounts is mostly a side effect of CO2 warming.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Republican politics and media campaigns.
    You, in other words. There is no "we".
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There hasn't been any. They didn't even bother to set up a rain gauge.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    If you are going to take that approach, then that's not correct either. The sun dominates our warming. 99.99% of our warming comes from the sun.
    sculptor likes this.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I'm going to assume you aren't trolling, but posting in good faith about the current warming trend behind every single one of my posts here (and your replies so far).*

    With that caveat: No, it doesn't.

    The measured and carefully observed solar variation is nowhere near enough to explain the current warming, even if it were changing in the right direction consistently (it isn't, of course), and it has very little influence on the changes in those greenhouse gas concentrations that are sufficient.

    And following the troll hole: as far as I can discover or figure the sun alone, without the heat trapping of the liquid water and CO2 and exposed rock, without volcanism, etc, would probably not be enough to keep even nitrogen in the atmosphere at a reliable concentration (I've never seen that calculation - extrapolating from the various calculations available). Look at the moon.

    Most sources hand me an average global surface temperature of about 255K without greenhouse warming - that's ignoring the effect on the planet's albedo of having its surface covered with ice and snow, the effect.of the loss of the O2 and N2 pressure on the heat delivered to the surface by volcanism, etc. Even that is less than 90%, not more than 99%.

    *And before you complain about being misunderstood, consider the implications of Sculptor's approval of your post. Troll posting has influences beyond its intent. For one thing, it becomes harder and harder to walk back - Sculptor used to be able to post arguments from evidence, and detect Schmelzers as easily as he could see through dishwater (to paraphrase the poet).
  19. Benson Registered Senior Member

    So the dinosaurs walked about drowsy? The atmosphere in the Jurassic period contained 5 times the amount of co2 than today, so approximately just over 2,000ppm.

    According to the alarmists/extinctionists, they should have been dead from dinosaur climate change, and not by rocks from space.
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. They evolved to handle that level over hundreds of thousands of years. We could too - if we had hundreds of thousands of years to evolve, and were willing to let the people who couldn't adapt die.

    Uh - perhaps do a little more research on that. That was a pretty dumb thing to say. It's like saying "he wasn't killed by a drive-by shooting, he was killed because he bled out AFTER being shot!"
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The dinos weren't mammals. And they had many millions of years to adapt. Modern dinos (birds) all have highly efficient "flow through" breathing structures, allowing them to do things like migrate over mountain ranges by flying above them, fly for hours at altitudes above those at which mammals can even walk easily, run at a higher metabolic rate than any other taxon of vertebrates, etc. It's likely that some such setup was common to all dinosaurs, part of the suite of adaptations that allowed them to grow very large.
    The oxygen partial pressure air was different then, as well.
    Who are these people who claim dinosaurs changed the climate? Citation?
    ("Extinctionist" ? What in hell is an "extinctionist"?)
  22. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Mankind will have to adapt too
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, the dinosaurs did really well with that. That's why there are so many of them around today.


Share This Page