>> Unfortunately as oceans warm, evaporation increases. Consequently, there is more water in the atmosphere to accelerate the global warming. >> Great logic except there are less clouds, drought is ravaging many places, the spread of air temperatures (max-min) is widening, and relative humidity is plummeting to as low as 5% or less in some populated places in summer. Fires testify to this. So what is stopping evaporation.... just one word OIL You wish to ban water ? LOL I hear this silly assertion all the time. see my link earlier in this thread, familiarise yourself with some factual observations. Industry, warfare and domestic activity is the cause, and all that is human induced.
No one is suggesting or asserting that water be banded. - I am only pointing out that H2O, not CO2, is the main complexity in the analysis of global energy exchange - I.e. Earth taking in visible and radiating IR back into space. In my original post, following paragraph considered clouds: "I can not adequately explain the effects of water in the atmosphere, but note it is a very complex issue in analysis of global warming. Clouds are mainly small aggregates of H2O molecules of sufficient size to reflect the sun's rays back into space, thus tending to reduce the Earth's temperature, very noticeable locally on the surface and air below them, while they last overhead. (They nearly double the solar heating of the air above the clouds, however, as the solar energy is given a "second chance" to be absorbed on its way back to space.) ..." I might add now for more accurate detail, that how much the "second change" at absorption increases upper atmosphere heating is a very strong function of latitude. For example, in the tropics the absorption path thru the atmosphere for sunlight coming down is much shorter than the average path of the cloud's diffusely reflected light leaving the Earth, so the "second chance" can approximately triple the absorption. Conversely, near the poles 100% of the incident sunlight is already passing thru a long atmospheric path and the light scatter by clouds is leaving Earth more directly on average with the "second chance" providing only about 1/3 as much absorption. There are also less frequent clouds in polar regions. The much colder high atmosphere sinks, especially in Antarctica, so that at the surface a strong wind always blows away from the pole. From our normal frame of reference, rotating with the Earth, this wind seems increasingly to come out of the East as you move away from the Pole. PS - Although oil on a calm sea does reduce evaporation I am almost sure the effect is very small compared to that of the wind, which greatly increases the surface area. - Not just the fact that sea with waves has greater area, but also the surface area of all the tiny dropplets of spray and the foam of "white caps." - Oil would have a comparatively minor effect and only then in areas where it is at least several monlayers thick with little wind constantly bringing clean water to the surface.
>> Oil would have a comparatively minor effect and only then in areas where it is several monlayers thick.>> The problem with oil on the sea is that it is an addition to the salinity of the sea. Any change in the "effective" salinity of the sea requires a new hydrology equilibrium in the atmosphere. So it is not just oil but oil and the prevailing sea salinity together. Evidence... the sea is heating up, clouds are diminishing, and droughts are on the increase as evidenced by fire and observation. This is not the picture one would expect from too much water in the atmosphere leading to warming. This is why there is so much confusion re global warming... the picture is very confused when viewed as caused by water vapour or carbon dioxide. The picture is really clear when you consider salt and oil, and the consequences of this are also well laid out. An analysis from the middle ages to now will show many small cycles of basic cooling leading to now, with slight warming in between. All due to many wars and a great increase in industry and the fallout. It is all there and well documented in the climate record when you consider the changes are due to oil.
Non-sense! You do not even have any data on the oil on the sea say during the little ice age or earlier warming spells, much less any evidence of a link.
well I need say no more, you are a mindreader, kewl. oil on the sea only came after the Industrial Revolution, before that all was rather natural. Since the IR, our climate has oscillated up and down, and generally going down.
I recently read a journal article that said the Earth's temperatures were at a much greater equilibrium in the past when Gondwana (present day India, Antarctica, and Australia) was over the Antarctic 300-400 million years ago, than they are today with cold polar regions and sweltering not equatorial regions. Large glaciers formed over the high latitudes but extensive swamp forests existed in tropical conditions, yet the entire continent was centered over the South Pole. This is relevant to Global Warming because it shows that the locations of the land masses are very crucial to climate change, as they were for the past and will be for the longterm future.
It is mere semantics whether human causes are the main culprit or are co conspirators. In my opinon human causes are undeniably guilty in substantial proportion. When your bucket is spilling water, you want to patch the biggest leak first. But, you are out of luck if you are dumb enough to stop before you patch every leak.
Do you really think global warming is such a bad thing? Consider first, the atmosphere over your head, there is the well known rainbow, sunlight reflected, refracted off water droplets or moisture in the atmosphere but in more resent years there has been rainbow fragments, not the entire bow. Also, the rainbow colors displayed in combination with cloud formations, a result of sunlight reflected or refracted off ice crystals in the atmosphere. Check out the research done by over 400 scientists at Key West, Florida called Crystal Face Crystal Face If you consider Earth's atmospheric conditions before the flood, there must have been an extensive moisture barrier at high altitude, most likely ice crystals because of lower temperatures at higher altitudes. Not to mention the entire water table would have been mush lower than at present, so living in a valley before the flood there could have been more atmospheric pressure above ones head if they were in a valley that is now part of an ocean. Thinking back again to what the conditions before the flood would most likely have been like with a moisture barrier to filter out the harmful effects of ultraviolet rays and holding in the heat, our Earth would most likely have been a more even temperature wide spread without frozen polar caps. Now if those same conditions before the flood were to be re-created, our human life span would be lengthen but the moisture would have to be replaced back to the atmosphere at a height for a barrier, that would entail melting a lot of the polar ice caps and movement of the moisture. Interesting enough, we are now seeing a melting of the polar ice caps and indications of ice crystals in the atmosphere not just water vapor or droplets, without an increase in the Earth's water volume, adjusting shorelines or receding landmass. So research some more.
FieryIce’s post 28 refers to “the flood” as if there was one only, instead of large ones almost every year somewhere, so I do not know what he is speaking of. There are also many unsupported and/or false statements such as: (1) “in more resent years there has been rainbow fragments, not the entire bow” Rainbow fragments have always been the common case. When you have a strong one, and you know were to look, often you can see a weak one above it with colors in reverse order. (2) “rainbow colors displayed … a result of sunlight reflected or refracted off ice crystals….” The rain bow is due to spherical water drops, never caused by hexagonal ice crystal which can send any color towards your eye as they take different orientations. I.e. Thousands of ice crystals never produce any net dispersion of colors on average. They do often produce a Halo around the moon, if you know where to look on clear cold night.* (3) “water table would have been much lower than at present” Water table has always been very location dependent - ranging for the surface (lakes and rivers) to very deep, where it normally is very salty. (4) “if those same conditions before the flood were to be re-created, our human life span would be lengthen but the moisture would have to be replaced back to the atmosphere at a height for a barrier, … Non-sense as both floods are common and there is no “atmospheric barrier” (5) “we are now seeing a melting of the polar ice caps and indications of ice crystals in the atmosphere not just water vapor or droplets …” Ice crystals in the high atmosphere are nothing new. In prehistoric times the ice crystal cause of the Halo around the moon* was not understood but was an omen (sometimes good sometimes bad, like comets and other “signs from heaven.”) (6) “… an increase in the Earth's water volume, adjusting shorelines or receding landmass.” In flat coastal areas like Mt. St. Monchete France, the shore line moves by kilometers twice a day with the tides. In very step shore lines, like the Fjords of Norway the movement has been vertical as these steep mountains were once below sea level under the weight of ice. The total mass of H2O on Earth has not significantly changed but when ice is stored on land the sea level drops. Compared to this variation, the change in quantity of water in the air is very insignificant, unless one goes so far back in time that no life of any form existed and all water on the very hot Earth was steam. ----------------------------------------------- *You can understand why there is a halo around the moon with a very sharp inner edge that just fades away with no clear outer edge, if you have a pen laser and a glass prism. Shine the light thru the prism and note the angle thru which the beam is bent while rotating the prism. You will find that when the angles at which the ray enters and leaves the prism are equal, then the total deflection is a minimum. For a hexagonal ice prism, as I recall this minimum deflection angle is about 22 degrees. Thus moonlight in the halo must not originally be headed towards your eye, but pass thru the ice crystal and be bent towards your eye. It is always bent by at least 22 degrees so no orientation of the ice crystal can bend it only 21 degrees - thus the inner edge of the halo is very sharp, but at 24 degrees deflection, etc some ice crystals have an orientation which can bend light towards your eye. When see this sharp-edged halo around the moon it is even more beautiful, at least for me if you understand how it all works. Try to see it if you never have. - It will be visible often in winter, but not every night. Easier to see when moon is full as then, with more light, the halo is brighter also.
Crystal-Face BS Crystal face 2003 What a load of poppy seed. These guys had no idea in 2003, and still they have no idea. >> Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities warm our climate. Two effects of this warming are the increase of clouds and the rise of water vapor in the atmosphere. Both of these in turn influence the impacts of the man-made gases on global warming. Clouds can reflect the sun rays away from the surface, cooling the climate, but they also act as “blankets,” trapping sun’s radiative heat. These various interactions are complex and not fully understood. However, the processes are crucial in determining the eventual overall effect of manmade greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. The detailed measurements from the Crystal-Face mission will assist in improving our climate models. >> http://www.espo.nasa.gov/crystalface/index.html Is this the joke, metal poisoned scientists with no idea whispering to politicians with deranged minds and no understanding, leading the world in the mother of all wars, called SURVIVAL LOL, extinction is going to be this outcome.
I have yet to see any empirical scientific evidence that the process of absorbing and reemitting IR can cause any type of warming. Jean Baptiste Fourier suggested that the air was warmed by the air absorbing "dark rays" produced by the earth. Fourier believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter and continuously absorbed these "dark rays" to become hotter. The theory was speculative and no evidence was produced to support it. Svante Arrhenius in 1896 suggested that increases in atmospheric CO2 would cause the air to become warmer. He underestimated the increase in CO2 and underestimated the temperature change. Normally in science when the predicted result does not occur the theory is considered invalid. Unfortunately, some still support the theory anyway. Another problem with the theory is that Niels Bohr in 1913 demonstrated that the process of absorbing and reemitting specific wavelengths of light affected the energy state of the electrons rather than the temperature of the atom/molecule. http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Bohr/Bohr-1913a.html
The data presented to support the claim are not mathematically valid. Climatologists average the high and low temperatures to determine the change in temperatures. Averaging only the high and low numbers of an irregularly distributed series of numbers doesn't produce a meaningful result. Any temperature change appears to be primarily in the northern hemisphere rather than uniformly around the globe.
