On average daily highs occur with an hour or two of the solar peak and seasonal highs occur within a few weeks of the summer solstice. For example, where I live the daily highs tend to peak around Jul 21th or about 4 weeks after the summer solstice. For daily lows they tend to be lowest around Jan. 14th or about 3 weeks after the winter solstice. Likewise, during the total solar eclipse in which all radiation went to zero the temperature continued to arise on average about 30-60 minutes after the peak of the eclipse. What's happening is that the radiation is getting absorbed by land and ocean first in the form of shortwave photons. The land and oceans then emit their own radiation in the form of longwave photons that then heat the lower atmosphere. They also conduct the heat away from the land and ocean and transfer it into the air above as well. There is a lag between the heating of the land and the transfer of this heat to the atmosphere. But the overall heat capture is instantaneous. It just takes time to move it from one medium to another. There are some misconception here about how this works. First, more heat and more water vapor do NOT necessarily mean more clouds. In fact, what's happening right now is that even though both dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures are increasing the rate of increase of the dry bulb T is faster than the rate of the wet bulb T. This leads to less clouds even though water vapor mixing ratios have increased. Second, more/less cloud clover does NOT necessarily mean less/more surface heat. The arrangement of the cloud cover dictates if the relationship is positive, negative, or neutral. Generally speaking clouds at night cause positive radiative pressure and clouds during the day cause negative radiative pressure. Similarly high troposphere level clouds put a cause positive radiative pressure and low troposphere clouds cause negative radiative pressure. Mid level clouds tend to be neutral. Right now cloud arrangements have resulted in a negative radiative forcing on the planet over the last couple of decades. Newer research is suggesting that this feedback will become neutral and then transition to a positive. In fact, just last week a study was released that suggested that if CO2 forcing isn't mitigated the planet will warm to a tipping point in which stratospheric clouds cease to exist altogher causing the temperature increase to double or even triple. No reason for alarm though...it is thought that this tipping point won't activate until CO2 goes above 1000 ppm which I doubt it ever will, but who knows.
Your dissembling is duly noted. Being wrong seems to be a badge of courage for you or something. And if you're going to cite the study, also cite the numerous criticisms of said research that indicate the level of credibility they enjoy. How many of these citations are you going to be willing to walk back?
It wouldn't stop manmade global warming. Here's why. WV is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature of the troposphere. As T goes up/down WV goes up/down and amplifies the change in T until a new equilibrium reestablished. This self limiting feedback equilibriates rapidly generally on the order of days or weeks at most. If WV goes above/below this equilibrium level there is downward/upward pressure on it. This is what locks WV concentrations onto a specific T at least when viewed over sufficiently long periods of time. Thus WV is not by itself capable of catalyzing temperature changes. This is actually intuitive if not mind numbingly obvious. Afterall, if WV could catalyze a temperature change then something as trivial as a hyperactive hurricane season would kick start a runaway greenhouse effect. But alas, after billions of years with countless hurricanes the oceans never boiled off like they did on Venus. What this means is that even if humans embarked on a fool hearted mission to increase WV concentrations in the atmosphere by pumping un-Godly amounts of H2O into the atmosphere it would all be for naught no matter how hard we tried. And the harder we try the harder nature will fight back to keep WV locked onto its equilibrium target. Similarly putting a moratorium on H2O release would have no effect because nature would just increase the evaportation rate elsewhere to compensate.
Jeezy Petes, you can't even recognize a joke.... But think about hundreds of millions/ or billions of fuel cell cars, all spewing that toxic water into the atmosphere.... Whatever will you do then?
There is a lot of criticism regarding the role clouds play in the climate system on both sides. Cloud feedback is probably one of the biggest uncertainties right now. Just remember that uncertainty is a double edged sword. It's just as likely that scientists are underestimating the warming potential of clouds as they are of overestimating their cooling potential. In fact, research with the last decade or so seems to suggest the error is more than likely on the side in which more warming will occur.
I realized it was a joke. My wife says I'm sometimes oblivious to sarcasm, but I'm not THAT dense. Anyway, I thought the science of how WV works would be insightful to some people on the forum.
Still worth it to get rid of airplanes. And I am sure AOC, with a little help from Elon, will come up with a way to teleport all the water to Mars - where they like really need it.
Nah...the Martians have canals to move the water from the poles to the equator so they'll be okay on their own
Ok, so take it on. What would hundreds of millions or a billion or two cars spewing H2O into the atmosphere do to your carefully curated cheerleading?
What's cool about CFCs? They are a greenhouse gas and an ozone depleting gas that accumulate in the atmosphere.
Let's add some more physics to the thread ! Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier discovered that nothing is lost and nothing is gained in the transformation of mass . This can be said and remains true in fossil fuel transformation . The mass energy equivalent of oil or coal is equal to the mass , transforming does not change the total mass that exists within the Earths system . What this means in simple terms , is that the transformation of fossil fuels does not add anything to the earth systems entropy because the mass already exists within the system .
We don't need CFCs to make refrigeration work. There are many CFC alternative refrigerants some of which are cheaper, less corrosive, less flammable, more environmentally friendly, and more effective and energy efficient anyway.
What were the options back in 1945? What was a ready for market alternative? And what you suggest is true, for today. But it wasn't for when CFCs were the answer to so many human conveniences and comforts.
The Montreal Protocol was ratified in 1987. It stipulated a phase out of CFCs over a decade long period. It was already known in the 1980's that CFC alternatives existed. I think the CFC story is a great example of capitalism at work. Banning CFCs would be devastating economically they said. Alternatives would be more costly, more corrosive, more flammable, etc. they said. Yet when governments around the world agreed to ban them companies like DuPont rose to the challenge and not only figured out how to mass produce alternatives, but produced better alternatives at that. They were incentivized to innovate not in spite of regulation, but because of it. The whole time DuPont fought hard against regulation using the same strategies of casting unwarranted doubt on the science that are in use today to fight CO2 regulation. The lesson for the United States...instead of fighting against the inevitable let's be leaders in the technology development for an energy source that is sustainable for long term economic growth. That way we get rich selling it to other countries. I much prefer that option than paying China for the technology.
In this, we don't disagree. I simply wish government stay out of it and not artificially pic a winner. That seems to be where we do differ. You seem willing to dictate to the market that which must happen as opposed to allowing it to organically transition. You know why electric cars will win, or not? Because folks will see a value in them beyond the smug of it. Why do you suppose Tesla, with all of their underwriting and support and subsidization is currently facing the challenges they are and the potential collapse? It's simple. Others are better at it than they were, and didn't use subsidization to get there and frankly produce better products. Folks who were looking for government to "create" that space for them were left behind, and will continue to get left behind. The market will decide the winners here. We so often here the question of range and folks ignore it. The issue behind this is one of mobility though. If you cannot drive across the nation, what good is a car that makes you wait 25-180 minutes every 3 hours of driving when you exhaust the batteries? I assume that batteries and efficiencies in drive systems will eventually provide a solution, but for now, why limit yourself?
I agree. It doesn't change the amount of mass in the Earth system. It does however increase the entropy of the fossil remains because they go from an ordered state to a disordered state. And the CO2 actually lowers the entropy of the atmosphere by creating a larger spread between warm temperatures in the troposphere and cool temperatures in the stratosphere. This does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because work is being performed on the atmosphere to make this happen.
I consider the mass energy equivalent of the transformation of fossil fuel can only absorb the same amount of inflowing energy as the prior state . Mass times energy cubed , re-radiated out into space or transitionally re-radiating to a lesser energy state , would be assumed equal to prior state , when the summation of total mass is unaltered in transformation ! mE³ / R^n Where m is mass , E is energy and R^n is an unspecified volume of real coordinate space !
The AGW crowd don't like thermos dynamics either... Inconveniently, it debunks most of their assertions...
Yes indeed it does ! The problem is electrical energy related and the increase is immeasurable in change .
On the contrary it is actually consistent with thermodynamics. It's skeptics that don't like thermodynamics because they (or at least many of them) think the energy used to warm the planet comes from nothing.
Please, do tell. This should be hilarious. You do realize that climate scientists tend to be Ph.Ds with postdocs in physics, right? I guarantee they know thermodynamics far better than conspiracy blog authors.
