On Jul 14, 4:02*am, Whata Fool wrote:
"Z0B0N" *wrote:
Jim Peden

July 14, 2008

QUOTE: If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight,
temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world's land
masses.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that
CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate.
[snip]
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/003251.html

* * * This is curious, while I don't see CO2 as a big factor in climate
or affecting local recorded weather services temperatures, the concept
that CO2 traps or heats up or heats the atmosphere doesn't seem to fit
GHG theory (as I see it).

* * * And the suggestion that 96 hours without sun would cause the whole
Earth to go below freezing is even less believable.

* * * Both of these ideas seem to ignore the fact that air has considerable
mass, and that the temperature of the air doesn't change temperature on the
cold winter nights as fast as some surfaces.

* * * Air has no way to cool without GHG absorption and re-radiation. * This
is almost true, and saying N2 has no way to cool other than GHG absorption
and re-radiation is even more true.

* * * (The reader may think this use of "true" is odd, but it is a more
correct way to express the actualities than to state absolutes, as O2 does
absorb a little radiation, and O3 absorbs even more.)

* * * The term "GreenHouse (Gas) effect) is acceptable even if GHGs don't
"trap" heat, because it seems very evident that GHGs absorb and redistribute
heat (thermal energy) throughout the atmosphere.
* * * But the fixation on CO2 effects is not realistic, simply because there
is so much more water vapor than CO2, both in number of molecules and in
mass.
* * * In the absence of any atmosphere at all, the surface can gain or
lose heat rapidly, while an atmosphere such as the Earth has, buffers the
temperature of the surface, and buffers it with a bias, cool air can
absorb heat from the surface easier than warm air can heat the surface.

* * * But it is water and water vapor that give the Earth the ideal climate
and warm temperatures that make life pleasant, buffering the surface and
air temperatures more than the air itself.
* * * In fact, the physical attributes of H2O provide very specific limits
and controls on surface and air temperatures.
* * * The considerable latent heat of fusion of water substantially retards
the surface temperature from dropping below zero C, and the very large
latent
heat of vaporization _prevents_ the temperature of the surface from rising
above the boiling point, plus it is the ability of water to evaporate or
even sublimate at almost any temperature that holds the temperatures to an
even more narrow range.

* * * CO2 essentially has no liquid phase in the atmosphere of Earth,
thus is not able to provide the controlling effects that H2O does.
* * * CO2 is in such a low concentration compared to water vapor, in
many if not most situations, CO2 has negligible effects, simply because
there is so much more water vapor at all altitudes and locations than
there is CO2.
* * * The stratosphere may be the only exception, moreso because the
temperature there is well below the freezing point of water than because
of the relative concentration.

* * * The fixation on CO2 as a primary climate controlling factor by
the AGW proponents is totally unwarranted, and apparently it arose as
simply a gossip fad more than as a reality, and this appraisal seems evident
in the fact that the gossip fad changes according to the perceived global
temperatures.
* * * The strong tendency of a well defined gradient with altitude provides
a clue to the contribution of the buffering mass of the N2 and O2 atmosphere
while the pressure zones and weather fronts give a strong indication of the
effects of water vapor and the water cycle.

* * * While the density of water vapor relative to that of air is less,
it is not enough to cause the extreme variation in barometric pressure
in cyclonics, it is only the large change in volume with phase change
from vapor to liquid that can account for the low pressures at the
center of cyclonics.
* * * And the phase change from vapor to liquid droplets and back does
add to the buffering effect and the temperature self-controlling effects
of H2O.

* * * Weather is one of the most complex subjects, and it is because of
the many varied attributes of H2O that makes this so.
* * * The trace gases of the atmosphere such as CO2 do not have all these
many attributes that H2O has.

* * * It is likely the lack of appreciation of these many attributes of
H2O that permits the fixation on CO2 being a bigger player in climate
and temperature than it actually is.

* * * Because all GHGs do redistribute and re-radiate thermal energy
quite rapidly, they essentially _cool_ the atmosphere, otherwise the
surface of Earth would have a wider range of temperatures, and the
atmosphere would not have the well defined vertical temperature gradient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are right that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause
significant global warming by itself. But it does have a small effect.

And the small effect that CO2 does have is amplified enormously by its
effect in increasing evaporation of water and thus causing a
significant increase in the GH effect of the two combined.

Methane counts, too, but that's an independent effect. It's the sum
of all of their effects that makes us worry.

Uncle Ben

On Jul 14, 2:00*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:02*am, Whata Fool wrote:
"Z0B0N" *wrote:
Jim Peden

July 14, 2008

QUOTE: If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight,
temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world's land
masses.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that
CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate.
[snip]
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/003251.html

* * * This is curious, while I don't see CO2 as a big factor in climate
or affecting local recorded weather services temperatures, the concept
that CO2 traps or heats up or heats the atmosphere doesn't seem to fit
GHG theory (as I see it).

* * * And the suggestion that 96 hours without sun would cause the whole
Earth to go below freezing is even less believable.

* * * Both of these ideas seem to ignore the fact that air has considerable
mass, and that the temperature of the air doesn't change temperature on the
cold winter nights as fast as some surfaces.

* * * Air has no way to cool without GHG absorption and re-radiation. * This
is almost true, and saying N2 has no way to cool other than GHG absorption
and re-radiation is even more true.

* * * (The reader may think this use of "true" is odd, but it is a more
correct way to express the actualities than to state absolutes, as O2 does
absorb a little radiation, and O3 absorbs even more.)

* * * The term "GreenHouse (Gas) effect) is acceptable even if GHGs don't
"trap" heat, because it seems very evident that GHGs absorb and redistribute
heat (thermal energy) throughout the atmosphere.
* * * But the fixation on CO2 effects is not realistic, simply because there
is so much more water vapor than CO2, both in number of molecules and in
mass.
* * * In the absence of any atmosphere at all, the surface can gain or
lose heat rapidly, while an atmosphere such as the Earth has, buffers the
temperature of the surface, and buffers it with a bias, cool air can
absorb heat from the surface easier than warm air can heat the surface.

* * * But it is water and water vapor that give the Earth the ideal climate
and warm temperatures that make life pleasant, buffering the surface and
air temperatures more than the air itself.
* * * In fact, the physical attributes of H2O provide very specific limits
and controls on surface and air temperatures.
* * * The considerable latent heat of fusion of water substantially retards
the surface temperature from dropping below zero C, and the very large
latent
heat of vaporization _prevents_ the temperature of the surface from rising
above the boiling point, plus it is the ability of water to evaporate or
even sublimate at almost any temperature that holds the temperatures to an
even more narrow range.

* * * CO2 essentially has no liquid phase in the atmosphere of Earth,
thus is not able to provide the controlling effects that H2O does.
* * * CO2 is in such a low concentration compared to water vapor, in
many if not most situations, CO2 has negligible effects, simply because
there is so much more water vapor at all altitudes and locations than
there is CO2.
* * * The stratosphere may be the only exception, moreso because the
temperature there is well below the freezing point of water than because
of the relative concentration.

* * * The fixation on CO2 as a primary climate controlling factor by
the AGW proponents is totally unwarranted, and apparently it arose as
simply a gossip fad more than as a reality, and this appraisal seems evident
in the fact that the gossip fad changes according to the perceived global
temperatures.
* * * The strong tendency of a well defined gradient with altitude provides
a clue to the contribution of the buffering mass of the N2 and O2 atmosphere
while the pressure zones and weather fronts give a strong indication of the
effects of water vapor and the water cycle.

* * * While the density of water vapor relative to that of air is less,
it is not enough to cause the extreme variation in barometric pressure
in cyclonics, it is only the large change in volume with phase change
from vapor to liquid that can account for the low pressures at the
center of cyclonics.
* * * And the phase change from vapor to liquid droplets and back does
add to the buffering effect and the temperature self-controlling effects
of H2O.

* * * Weather is one of the most complex subjects, and it is because of
the many varied attributes of H2O that makes this so.
* * * The trace gases of the atmosphere such as CO2 do not have all these
many attributes that H2O has.

* * * It is likely the lack of appreciation of these many attributes of
H2O that permits the fixation on CO2 being a bigger player in climate
and temperature than it actually is.

* * * Because all GHGs do redistribute and re-radiate thermal energy
quite rapidly, they essentially _cool_ the atmosphere, otherwise the
surface of Earth would have a wider range of temperatures, and the
atmosphere would not have the well defined vertical temperature gradient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are right that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause
significant global warming by itself. But it does have a small effect.

And the small effect that CO2 does have is amplified enormously by its
effect in increasing evaporation of water and thus causing a
significant increase in the GH effect of the two combined.

Huh?
How can CO2 increase evaporation of water? Tell me.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The CO2 can cause a small warming. The small warming causes a small
evaporation. The small evaporation causes a larger evaporation. Add a
few more cycles and you have a large effect.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:

On Jul 14, 4:02 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"Z0B0N" wrote:
Jim Peden

July 14, 2008

QUOTE: If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight,
temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world's
land masses.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion
that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any
rate.
[snip]
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/003251.html

This is curious, while I don't see CO2 as a big factor in climate
or affecting local recorded weather services temperatures, the
concept
that CO2 traps or heats up or heats the atmosphere doesn't seem to
fit
GHG theory (as I see it).

And the suggestion that 96 hours without sun would cause the whole
Earth to go below freezing is even less believable.

Both of these ideas seem to ignore the fact that air has
considerable
mass, and that the temperature of the air doesn't change
temperature on the
cold winter nights as fast as some surfaces.

Air has no way to cool without GHG absorption and re-radiation. This
is almost true, and saying N2 has no way to cool other than GHG
absorption
and re-radiation is even more true.

(The reader may think this use of "true" is odd, but it is a more
correct way to express the actualities than to state absolutes, as
O2 does
absorb a little radiation, and O3 absorbs even more.)

The term "GreenHouse (Gas) effect) is acceptable even if GHGs don't
"trap" heat, because it seems very evident that GHGs absorb and
redistribute
heat (thermal energy) throughout the atmosphere.
But the fixation on CO2 effects is not realistic, simply because
there
is so much more water vapor than CO2, both in number of molecules
and in
mass.
In the absence of any atmosphere at all, the surface can gain or
lose heat rapidly, while an atmosphere such as the Earth has,
buffers the
temperature of the surface, and buffers it with a bias, cool air can
absorb heat from the surface easier than warm air can heat the
surface.

But it is water and water vapor that give the Earth the ideal
climate
and warm temperatures that make life pleasant, buffering the
surface and
air temperatures more than the air itself.
In fact, the physical attributes of H2O provide very specific limits
and controls on surface and air temperatures.
The considerable latent heat of fusion of water substantially
retards
the surface temperature from dropping below zero C, and the very
large
latent
heat of vaporization _prevents_ the temperature of the surface from
rising
above the boiling point, plus it is the ability of water to
evaporate or
even sublimate at almost any temperature that holds the
temperatures to an
even more narrow range.

CO2 essentially has no liquid phase in the atmosphere of Earth,
thus is not able to provide the controlling effects that H2O does.
CO2 is in such a low concentration compared to water vapor, in
many if not most situations, CO2 has negligible effects, simply
because
there is so much more water vapor at all altitudes and locations
than
there is CO2.
The stratosphere may be the only exception, moreso because the
temperature there is well below the freezing point of water than
because
of the relative concentration.

The fixation on CO2 as a primary climate controlling factor by
the AGW proponents is totally unwarranted, and apparently it arose
as
simply a gossip fad more than as a reality, and this appraisal
seems evident
in the fact that the gossip fad changes according to the perceived
global
temperatures.
The strong tendency of a well defined gradient with altitude
provides
a clue to the contribution of the buffering mass of the N2 and O2
atmosphere
while the pressure zones and weather fronts give a strong
indication of the
effects of water vapor and the water cycle.

While the density of water vapor relative to that of air is less,
it is not enough to cause the extreme variation in barometric
pressure
in cyclonics, it is only the large change in volume with phase
change
from vapor to liquid that can account for the low pressures at the
center of cyclonics.
And the phase change from vapor to liquid droplets and back does
add to the buffering effect and the temperature self-controlling
effects
of H2O.

Weather is one of the most complex subjects, and it is because of
the many varied attributes of H2O that makes this so.
The trace gases of the atmosphere such as CO2 do not have all these
many attributes that H2O has.

It is likely the lack of appreciation of these many attributes of
H2O that permits the fixation on CO2 being a bigger player in
climate
and temperature than it actually is.

Because all GHGs do redistribute and re-radiate thermal energy
quite rapidly, they essentially _cool_ the atmosphere, otherwise the
surface of Earth would have a wider range of temperatures, and the
atmosphere would not have the well defined vertical temperature
gradient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are right that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause
significant global warming by itself. But it does have a small
effect.

And the small effect that CO2 does have is amplified enormously by
its effect in increasing evaporation of water and thus causing a
significant increase in the GH effect of the two combined.

Huh?
How can CO2 increase evaporation of water? Tell me.

When it gets warmer, water evaporates faster. Even small children know
this.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:43:06 -0700, Uncle Ben wrote:

On Jul 14, 4:02Â*am, Whata Fool wrote:
"Z0B0N" Â*wrote:
Jim Peden

July 14, 2008

QUOTE: If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight,
temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world's land
masses.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that
CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate.
[snip]
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/003251.html

Â* Â* Â* This is curious, while I don't see CO2 as a big factor in
climate or affecting local recorded weather services temperatures, the
concept that CO2 traps or heats up or heats the atmosphere doesn't seem
to fit GHG theory (as I see it).

Â* Â* Â* And the suggestion that 96 hours without sun would cause the
whole Earth to go below freezing is even less believable.

Â* Â* Â* Both of these ideas seem to ignore the fact that air has
considerable mass, and that the temperature of the air doesn't change
temperature on the cold winter nights as fast as some surfaces.

Â* Â* Â* Air has no way to cool without GHG absorption and re-radiation.
Â* This is almost true, and saying N2 has no way to cool other than GHG
absorption and re-radiation is even more true.

Â* Â* Â* (The reader may think this use of "true" is odd, but it is a
more correct way to express the actualities than to state absolutes, as
O2 does absorb a little radiation, and O3 absorbs even more.)

Â* Â* Â* The term "GreenHouse (Gas) effect) is acceptable even if GHGs
don't "trap" heat, because it seems very evident that GHGs absorb and
redistribute heat (thermal energy) throughout the atmosphere. Â* Â* Â*
But the fixation on CO2 effects is not realistic, simply because there
is so much more water vapor than CO2, both in number of molecules and in
mass.
Â* Â* Â* In the absence of any atmosphere at all, the surface can gain
or lose heat rapidly, while an atmosphere such as the Earth has, buffers
the temperature of the surface, and buffers it with a bias, cool air can
absorb heat from the surface easier than warm air can heat the surface.

Â* Â* Â* But it is water and water vapor that give the Earth the ideal
climate and warm temperatures that make life pleasant, buffering the
surface and air temperatures more than the air itself. Â* Â* Â* In fact,
the physical attributes of H2O provide very specific limits and controls
on surface and air temperatures. Â* Â* Â* The considerable latent heat
of fusion of water substantially retards the surface temperature from
dropping below zero C, and the very large latent
heat of vaporization _prevents_ the temperature of the surface from
rising above the boiling point, plus it is the ability of water to
evaporate or even sublimate at almost any temperature that holds the
temperatures to an even more narrow range.

Â* Â* Â* CO2 essentially has no liquid phase in the atmosphere of Earth,
thus is not able to provide the controlling effects that H2O does. Â* Â*
Â* CO2 is in such a low concentration compared to water vapor, in many
if not most situations, CO2 has negligible effects, simply because there
is so much more water vapor at all altitudes and locations than there is
CO2.
Â* Â* Â* The stratosphere may be the only exception, moreso because the
temperature there is well below the freezing point of water than because
of the relative concentration.

Â* Â* Â* The fixation on CO2 as a primary climate controlling factor by
the AGW proponents is totally unwarranted, and apparently it arose as
simply a gossip fad more than as a reality, and this appraisal seems
evident in the fact that the gossip fad changes according to the
perceived global temperatures.
Â* Â* Â* The strong tendency of a well defined gradient with altitude
provides a clue to the contribution of the buffering mass of the N2 and
O2 atmosphere while the pressure zones and weather fronts give a strong
indication of the effects of water vapor and the water cycle.

Â* Â* Â* While the density of water vapor relative to that of air is
less, it is not enough to cause the extreme variation in barometric
pressure in cyclonics, it is only the large change in volume with phase
change from vapor to liquid that can account for the low pressures at
the center of cyclonics.
Â* Â* Â* And the phase change from vapor to liquid droplets and back
does add to the buffering effect and the temperature self-controlling
effects of H2O.

Â* Â* Â* Weather is one of the most complex subjects, and it is because
of the many varied attributes of H2O that makes this so. Â* Â* Â* The
trace gases of the atmosphere such as CO2 do not have all these many
attributes that H2O has.

Â* Â* Â* It is likely the lack of appreciation of these many attributes
of H2O that permits the fixation on CO2 being a bigger player in climate
and temperature than it actually is.

Â* Â* Â* Because all GHGs do redistribute and re-radiate thermal energy
quite rapidly, they essentially _cool_ the atmosphere, otherwise the
surface of Earth would have a wider range of temperatures, and the
atmosphere would not have the well defined vertical temperature
gradient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are right that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause
significant global warming by itself. But it does have a small effect.

And the small effect that CO2 does have is amplified enormously by its
effect in increasing evaporation of water and thus causing a significant
increase in the GH effect of the two combined.

Could you show us the evidence for that "enormous" overall positive
feedback? Could you then explain how, with a great abundance of water
already available, the Earth's climate has never run away? Why is it
cooling now while CO2 continues to rise unabated?

Methane counts, too, but that's an independent effect. It's the sum of
all of their effects that makes us worry.

I'd say it's more likely a $300M propaganda barrage that's got you worried.

It seems to be failing.

Uncle Ben wrote:

On Jul 14, 4:02?am, Whata Fool wrote:
"Z0B0N" ?wrote:
Jim Peden

July 14, 2008

QUOTE: If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight,
temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world's land
masses.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that
CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate.
[snip]
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/003251.html

? ? ? This is curious, while I don't see CO2 as a big factor in climate
or affecting local recorded weather services temperatures, the concept
that CO2 traps or heats up or heats the atmosphere doesn't seem to fit
GHG theory (as I see it).

? ? ? And the suggestion that 96 hours without sun would cause the whole
Earth to go below freezing is even less believable.

? ? ? Both of these ideas seem to ignore the fact that air has considerable
mass, and that the temperature of the air doesn't change temperature on the
cold winter nights as fast as some surfaces.

? ? ? Air has no way to cool without GHG absorption and re-radiation. ? This
is almost true, and saying N2 has no way to cool other than GHG absorption
and re-radiation is even more true.

? ? ? (The reader may think this use of "true" is odd, but it is a more
correct way to express the actualities than to state absolutes, as O2 does
absorb a little radiation, and O3 absorbs even more.)

? ? ? The term "GreenHouse (Gas) effect) is acceptable even if GHGs don't
"trap" heat, because it seems very evident that GHGs absorb and redistribute
heat (thermal energy) throughout the atmosphere.
? ? ? But the fixation on CO2 effects is not realistic, simply because there
is so much more water vapor than CO2, both in number of molecules and in
mass.
? ? ? In the absence of any atmosphere at all, the surface can gain or
lose heat rapidly, while an atmosphere such as the Earth has, buffers the
temperature of the surface, and buffers it with a bias, cool air can
absorb heat from the surface easier than warm air can heat the surface.

? ? ? But it is water and water vapor that give the Earth the ideal climate
and warm temperatures that make life pleasant, buffering the surface and
air temperatures more than the air itself.
? ? ? In fact, the physical attributes of H2O provide very specific limits
and controls on surface and air temperatures.
? ? ? The considerable latent heat of fusion of water substantially retards
the surface temperature from dropping below zero C, and the very large
latent
heat of vaporization _prevents_ the temperature of the surface from rising
above the boiling point, plus it is the ability of water to evaporate or
even sublimate at almost any temperature that holds the temperatures to an
even more narrow range.

? ? ? CO2 essentially has no liquid phase in the atmosphere of Earth,
thus is not able to provide the controlling effects that H2O does.
? ? ? CO2 is in such a low concentration compared to water vapor, in
many if not most situations, CO2 has negligible effects, simply because
there is so much more water vapor at all altitudes and locations than
there is CO2.
? ? ? The stratosphere may be the only exception, moreso because the
temperature there is well below the freezing point of water than because
of the relative concentration.

? ? ? The fixation on CO2 as a primary climate controlling factor by
the AGW proponents is totally unwarranted, and apparently it arose as
simply a gossip fad more than as a reality, and this appraisal seems evident
in the fact that the gossip fad changes according to the perceived global
temperatures.
? ? ? The strong tendency of a well defined gradient with altitude provides
a clue to the contribution of the buffering mass of the N2 and O2 atmosphere
while the pressure zones and weather fronts give a strong indication of the
effects of water vapor and the water cycle.

? ? ? While the density of water vapor relative to that of air is less,
it is not enough to cause the extreme variation in barometric pressure
in cyclonics, it is only the large change in volume with phase change
from vapor to liquid that can account for the low pressures at the
center of cyclonics.
? ? ? And the phase change from vapor to liquid droplets and back does
add to the buffering effect and the temperature self-controlling effects
of H2O.

? ? ? Weather is one of the most complex subjects, and it is because of
the many varied attributes of H2O that makes this so.
? ? ? The trace gases of the atmosphere such as CO2 do not have all these
many attributes that H2O has.

? ? ? It is likely the lack of appreciation of these many attributes of
H2O that permits the fixation on CO2 being a bigger player in climate
and temperature than it actually is.

? ? ? Because all GHGs do redistribute and re-radiate thermal energy
quite rapidly, they essentially _cool_ the atmosphere, otherwise the
surface of Earth would have a wider range of temperatures, and the
atmosphere would not have the well defined vertical temperature gradient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are right that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause
significant global warming by itself. But it does have a small effect.


Anybody and everybody should know that, but the question is,
"how large _is_ the effect".


And the small effect that CO2 does have is amplified enormously by its
effect in increasing evaporation of water and thus causing a
significant increase in the GH effect of the two combined.


That is a premise that simply has no demonstrated merit, it is a
claim made on the basis of a presumption of substantial effects caused
by CO2, and the silly statement that H2O doesn't stay in the air long,
it precipitates out.

There is nothing that I know of that suggests more moisture in
the atmosphere, but I will be looking for documentation on that.

Note that local flooding or greater than 12 inch rainfall in a
day or so in a given location does not relate to moisture other places.


Methane counts, too, but that's an independent effect. It's the sum
of all of their effects that makes us worry.

Uncle Ben


It may be the sum of all the effects, but tell us what it is that
you worry about, GW theory states that the tropics would warm less than
the poles, so we are back to the polar bear nonsense.

I do think there has been big changes in the atmosphere though,
either it is drier than 50 years ago, which can allow temperatures
to go higher quicker, or there is less sulfur or particulates which
lets the air cool quicker at night and seems to make the air more
clear and sunlight look different with less color (or else these plastic
implant lens are more clear than the original and my perception has not
compensated.

I don't see any way that there is much extreme weather or record
breaking, and as the data set becomes more mature there should be less
records broken, both daily for a given location, or all-time records
for a region, state, or continent.


What I worry about is how cool the nights are for this time of
year, and if the nights next winter will be colder than usual.
Keeping warm is now thing, right next to need for oxygen, and
way ahead of the need for food and water.

A degree or two warmer is not even on my worry list.

Uncle Ben wrote:

The CO2 can cause a small warming. The small warming causes a small
evaporation. The small evaporation causes a larger evaporation. Add a
few more cycles and you have a large effect.


Evaporation doesn't cause more evaporation, evaporation causes
cooling which reduces evaporation.

Changes in wind speed can have much more of an effect on
evaporation than a couple of degrees temperature change.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:

On Jul 14, 2:00 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"Z0B0N" wrote:
Jim Peden

July 14, 2008

QUOTE: If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight,
temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world's
land masses.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion
that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at
any rate.
[snip]
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/003251.html

This is curious, while I don't see CO2 as a big factor in climate
or affecting local recorded weather services temperatures, the
concept
that CO2 traps or heats up or heats the atmosphere doesn't seem
to fit
GHG theory (as I see it).

And the suggestion that 96 hours without sun would cause the whole
Earth to go below freezing is even less believable.

Both of these ideas seem to ignore the fact that air has
considerable
mass, and that the temperature of the air doesn't change
temperature on the
cold winter nights as fast as some surfaces.

Air has no way to cool without GHG absorption and re-radiation.
This
is almost true, and saying N2 has no way to cool other than GHG
absorption
and re-radiation is even more true.

(The reader may think this use of "true" is odd, but it is a more
correct way to express the actualities than to state absolutes,
as O2 does
absorb a little radiation, and O3 absorbs even more.)

The term "GreenHouse (Gas) effect) is acceptable even if GHGs
don't "trap" heat, because it seems very evident that GHGs absorb
and redistribute
heat (thermal energy) throughout the atmosphere.
But the fixation on CO2 effects is not realistic, simply because
there
is so much more water vapor than CO2, both in number of molecules
and in
mass.
In the absence of any atmosphere at all, the surface can gain or
lose heat rapidly, while an atmosphere such as the Earth has,
buffers the
temperature of the surface, and buffers it with a bias, cool air
can
absorb heat from the surface easier than warm air can heat the
surface.

But it is water and water vapor that give the Earth the ideal
climate
and warm temperatures that make life pleasant, buffering the
surface and
air temperatures more than the air itself.
In fact, the physical attributes of H2O provide very specific
limits
and controls on surface and air temperatures.
The considerable latent heat of fusion of water substantially
retards
the surface temperature from dropping below zero C, and the very
large
latent
heat of vaporization _prevents_ the temperature of the surface
from rising
above the boiling point, plus it is the ability of water to
evaporate or
even sublimate at almost any temperature that holds the
temperatures to an
even more narrow range.

CO2 essentially has no liquid phase in the atmosphere of Earth,
thus is not able to provide the controlling effects that H2O does.
CO2 is in such a low concentration compared to water vapor, in
many if not most situations, CO2 has negligible effects, simply
because
there is so much more water vapor at all altitudes and locations
than
there is CO2.
The stratosphere may be the only exception, moreso because the
temperature there is well below the freezing point of water than
because
of the relative concentration.

The fixation on CO2 as a primary climate controlling factor by
the AGW proponents is totally unwarranted, and apparently it
arose as
simply a gossip fad more than as a reality, and this appraisal
seems evident
in the fact that the gossip fad changes according to the
perceived global
temperatures.
The strong tendency of a well defined gradient with altitude
provides
a clue to the contribution of the buffering mass of the N2 and O2
atmosphere
while the pressure zones and weather fronts give a strong
indication of the
effects of water vapor and the water cycle.

While the density of water vapor relative to that of air is less,
it is not enough to cause the extreme variation in barometric
pressure
in cyclonics, it is only the large change in volume with phase
change
from vapor to liquid that can account for the low pressures at the
center of cyclonics.
And the phase change from vapor to liquid droplets and back does
add to the buffering effect and the temperature self-controlling
effects
of H2O.

Weather is one of the most complex subjects, and it is because of
the many varied attributes of H2O that makes this so.
The trace gases of the atmosphere such as CO2 do not have all
these
many attributes that H2O has.

It is likely the lack of appreciation of these many attributes of
H2O that permits the fixation on CO2 being a bigger player in
climate
and temperature than it actually is.

Because all GHGs do redistribute and re-radiate thermal energy
quite rapidly, they essentially _cool_ the atmosphere, otherwise
the
surface of Earth would have a wider range of temperatures, and the
atmosphere would not have the well defined vertical temperature
gradient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are right that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to
cause significant global warming by itself. But it does have a
small effect.

And the small effect that CO2 does have is amplified enormously by
its effect in increasing evaporation of water and thus causing a
significant increase in the GH effect of the two combined.

Huh?
How can CO2 increase evaporation of water? Tell me.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

The CO2 can cause a small warming. The small warming causes a small
evaporation. The small evaporation causes a larger evaporation. Add
a few more cycles and you have a large effect.

Tell me, where does the initial warming come from.
Or will you suggest, that CO2 can produce heat itself off the reel?

See alt.global-warming

Whata Fool wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:

The CO2 can cause a small warming. The small warming causes a small
evaporation. The small evaporation causes a larger evaporation. Add
a few more cycles and you have a large effect.


Evaporation doesn't cause more evaporation, evaporation causes
cooling which reduces evaporation.

Changes in wind speed can have much more of an effect on
evaporation than a couple of degrees temperature change.

Except that wind speed is not slowly increasing over the long term.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:43:06 -0700, Uncle Ben wrote:

On Jul 14, 4:02 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"Z0B0N" wrote:
Jim Peden

July 14, 2008

QUOTE: If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight,
temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world's
land masses.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion
that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any
rate. [snip]
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/003251.html

This is curious, while I don't see CO2 as a big factor in
climate or affecting local recorded weather services temperatures,
the concept that CO2 traps or heats up or heats the atmosphere
doesn't seem to fit GHG theory (as I see it).

And the suggestion that 96 hours without sun would cause the
whole Earth to go below freezing is even less believable.

Both of these ideas seem to ignore the fact that air has
considerable mass, and that the temperature of the air doesn't
change temperature on the cold winter nights as fast as some
surfaces.

Air has no way to cool without GHG absorption and re-radiation.
This is almost true, and saying N2 has no way to cool other than GHG
absorption and re-radiation is even more true.

(The reader may think this use of "true" is odd, but it is a
more correct way to express the actualities than to state
absolutes, as O2 does absorb a little radiation, and O3 absorbs
even more.)

The term "GreenHouse (Gas) effect) is acceptable even if GHGs
don't "trap" heat, because it seems very evident that GHGs absorb
and redistribute heat (thermal energy) throughout the atmosphere.
But the fixation on CO2 effects is not realistic, simply because
there is so much more water vapor than CO2, both in number of
molecules and in mass.
In the absence of any atmosphere at all, the surface can gain
or lose heat rapidly, while an atmosphere such as the Earth has,
buffers the temperature of the surface, and buffers it with a bias,
cool air can absorb heat from the surface easier than warm air can
heat the surface.

But it is water and water vapor that give the Earth the ideal
climate and warm temperatures that make life pleasant, buffering the
surface and air temperatures more than the air itself. In fact,
the physical attributes of H2O provide very specific limits and
controls on surface and air temperatures. The considerable latent
heat
of fusion of water substantially retards the surface temperature
from dropping below zero C, and the very large latent
heat of vaporization _prevents_ the temperature of the surface from
rising above the boiling point, plus it is the ability of water to
evaporate or even sublimate at almost any temperature that holds the
temperatures to an even more narrow range.

CO2 essentially has no liquid phase in the atmosphere of Earth,
thus is not able to provide the controlling effects that H2O does.
CO2 is in such a low concentration compared to water vapor, in many
if not most situations, CO2 has negligible effects, simply because
there is so much more water vapor at all altitudes and locations
than there is CO2.
The stratosphere may be the only exception, moreso because the
temperature there is well below the freezing point of water than
because of the relative concentration.

The fixation on CO2 as a primary climate controlling factor by
the AGW proponents is totally unwarranted, and apparently it arose
as simply a gossip fad more than as a reality, and this appraisal
seems evident in the fact that the gossip fad changes according to
the perceived global temperatures.
The strong tendency of a well defined gradient with altitude
provides a clue to the contribution of the buffering mass of the N2
and O2 atmosphere while the pressure zones and weather fronts give
a strong indication of the effects of water vapor and the water
cycle.

While the density of water vapor relative to that of air is
less, it is not enough to cause the extreme variation in barometric
pressure in cyclonics, it is only the large change in volume with
phase change from vapor to liquid that can account for the low
pressures at the center of cyclonics.
And the phase change from vapor to liquid droplets and back
does add to the buffering effect and the temperature
self-controlling effects of H2O.

Weather is one of the most complex subjects, and it is because
of the many varied attributes of H2O that makes this so. The
trace gases of the atmosphere such as CO2 do not have all these many
attributes that H2O has.

It is likely the lack of appreciation of these many attributes
of H2O that permits the fixation on CO2 being a bigger player in
climate and temperature than it actually is.

Because all GHGs do redistribute and re-radiate thermal energy
quite rapidly, they essentially _cool_ the atmosphere, otherwise the
surface of Earth would have a wider range of temperatures, and the
atmosphere would not have the well defined vertical temperature
gradient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are right that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause
significant global warming by itself. But it does have a small
effect.

And the small effect that CO2 does have is amplified enormously by
its effect in increasing evaporation of water and thus causing a
significant increase in the GH effect of the two combined.

Could you show us the evidence for that "enormous" overall positive
feedback? Could you then explain how, with a great abundance of water
already available, the Earth's climate has never run away? Why is it
cooling now while CO2 continues to rise unabated?

see alt.global-warming for repeated cites on this topic.

On Jul 14, 2:15*pm, Uncle Ben wrote:

Huh?
How can CO2 increase evaporation of water? Tell me.

The CO2 can cause a small warming. *The small warming causes a small
evaporation. The small evaporation causes a larger evaporation. *Add a
few more cycles and you have a large effect.

But that "small warming" is special. It *has* to come from CO2,
otherwise it can have absolutely no effect.

If the same "small warming" came from a small fluctuation in water
vapor itself, it can't trigger the same process -- well, because CO2
is, uh, CO2, and nothing else can trigger this amazing repeated
feedback cycle.

When properly utilized, this amazing feedback cycle can produce
catastrophe starting from a very small amount of heat, as long as the
source for the very small amount of heat was politically correct, i.e.
CO2.

Did I get the essense of this right?