Record cold and snow in Brazil

[billvon]

CO2 is the dominant and most effective greenhouse gas

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

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.)

 

[LaurieAG]

There are very few, if any, places "around the world" in similar circumstances.

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.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/airtemp-measure.shtml

Observations

The highest temperature over the 24 hours prior to observation at 9 am is recorded as the maximum temperature for the previous day.

 

[iceaura]

Nope. Water is.

CO2 is what maintains water vapor in the atmosphere - the greenhouse effects of water vapor are side effects, feedback effects, of CO2 warming.

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.)

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. https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

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.

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.

 

[sculptor]

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

And
we seem to have no shortage of compulsive idiots
The University where my beloved spouse works just replaced the windows in her building
and
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?)

 

[exchemist]

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

And
we seem to have no shortage of compulsive idiots
The University where my beloved spouse works just replaced the windows in her building
and
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?)

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.

 

[billvon]

CO2 is what maintains water vapor in the atmosphere

Nope. Evaporation is what maintains water vapor in the atmosphere.

the greenhouse effects of water vapor are side effects, feedback effects, of CO2 warming.

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.

Probably the extra warming from increased water vapor has been and will be a greater change than the extra from the increased CO2 alone.

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.)

CO2 controls the greenhouse gas warming of the surface of this planet

There are a dozen ways that the greenhouse effect is maintained on Earth. CO2 is just one of them.

 

[billvon]

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

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.

 

[sculptor]

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

...

When?
in 30 years?
in 50 years?
meanwhile
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

 

[billvon]

When?
in 30 years?
in 50 years?

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.

Who will turn off the air conditioner and open a window?

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.

 

[LaurieAG]

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.

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.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2021/08/rain-at-the-summit-of-greenland/

On August 14, 2021, rain was observed at the highest point on the Greenland Ice Sheet for several hours, and air temperatures remained above freezing for about nine hours. This was the third time in less than a decade, and the latest date in the year on record, that the National Science Foundation’s Summit Station had above-freezing temperatures and wet snow. There is no previous report of rainfall at this location (72.58°N 38.46°W), which reaches 3,216 meters (10,551 feet) in elevation.

Above freezing temperatures and rainfall were widespread to the south and west of Greenland during the three-day period, with exceptional readings from several remote weather stations in the area. Total rainfall on the ice sheet was 7 billion tons.

 

[iceaura]

There are a dozen ways that the greenhouse effect is maintained on Earth. CO2 is just one of them.

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.

Again, no. Everything - from water vapor to CO2 to methane to ozone - plays a role in mediating the greenhouse effect.

Mostly as side effects of CO2 warming.

Nope. Evaporation is what maintains water vapor in the atmosphere.

That and condensation/precipitation rates - maintenance is a balancing of source and sink rates. Those rates are largely controlled by CO2 warming.

Ah, that's why I was careful to say "clear atmosphere" above. Because when you evaporate a LOT of water, low clouds form

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.

But water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect.

The existence of atmospheric water vapor in significant amounts is mostly a side effect of CO2 warming.

 

[iceaura]

we converse
the insanity goes on

Republican politics and media campaigns.
You, in other words. There is no "we".

 

[iceaura]

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.

There hasn't been any. They didn't even bother to set up a rain gauge.

 

[billvon]

CO2 dominates, overwhelmingly.

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.

 

[iceaura]

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.

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.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

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).

 

[Benson]

Indeed. Drowsiness sets in at about 1000ppm and headaches and other health effects at about 5,000ppm, I think.

But a lot of the major cities of the world, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands and Bangladesh, will be under water by then.

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.

 

[billvon]

So the dinosaurs walked about drowsy?

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.

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

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!"

 

[iceaura]

o the dinosaurs walked about drowsy?

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.

According to the alarmists/extinctionists, they should have been dead from dinosaur climate change, and not by rocks from space

Who are these people who claim dinosaurs changed the climate? Citation?
("Extinctionist" ? What in hell is an "extinctionist"?)

 

[Benson]

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!"

Mankind will have to adapt too

 

[billvon]

Mankind will have to adapt too

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

Right?