2010 saw widespread and growing evidence of rapidly warming global climate and strengthening scientific understanding of how humans are contributing to climate change. Yet on the policy front, little happened to stem the growing emissions of greenhouse gases or to help societies prepare for increasingly severe negative climate impacts, including now unavoidable changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, sea-level rise, snowpack, glacial extent, Arctic sea ice, and more. These physical impacts will lead to sharply increased disease, military and economic instabilities, food and water shortages, and extreme weather events, among other things. Without appropriate risk management action, the United States will be hit hard. There is no safe haven. Yet confusion and uncertainty about climate change remain high in the minds of too many members of the public and Congress.
Why? In large part because of a concerted, coordinated, aggressive campaign by a small group of well-funded climate change deniers and contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science. These efforts have been successful in sowing confusion and delaying action -- just as the same tactics were successful in delaying efforts to tackle tobacco's health risks.
To counter this campaign of disinformation, we are issuing the first in what may become a series of awards for the most egregious Climate B.S.* of the Year. In preparing the list of nominees, suggestions were received from around the world and a panel of reviewers -- all scientists or climate communicators -- waded through them. We present here the top five nominees and the winner of the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.
Fifth Place. Climate B.S. and misrepresentations presented by Fox "News."
There are many examples of bad science, misrepresentations, omissions of facts, and distortions of climate reality coming from Fox "News" (far too many to list here, but we note that Joe Romm just gave Fox his 2010 Citizen Kane Award for "non-excellence in journalism" for their misrepresentations of climate science). It seems that Fox has now made it their policy to deny the reality of climate change and has told its reporters to misreport or cast doubt on the science. This policy of disinformation was implemented by Fox News executive Bill Sammon, who ordered staff to cast doubt on climate data in a memo revealed this month. Fox's political commentators have long used this tactic in their one-sided and biased discussions on climate change but Sammon's memo seems to direct News staff to slant reporting in direct contradiction to what the scientific facts and scientists actually say.
Fourth Place. Misleading or false testimony to Congress and policymakers about climate change.
While Congress held more hearings in 2010 on climate change than in other recent years, these hearings elicited some astounding testimonies submitted by climate deniers and skeptics filled with false and misleading statements about climate science and total B.S. Examples?
Long-time climate change skeptic Patrick Michaels testified before the House Science and Technology Committee and misrepresented the scientific understanding of the human role in climate change and the well-understood effects of fundamental climatic factors, such as the effects of visible air pollution. Including these effects (as climate scientists have done for many years) would have completely changed his results. Michaels has misrepresented mainstream climate science for decades, as has been noted here, here, and elsewhere, yet he remains a darling of the skeptics in Congress who like his message.
A newer darling of congressional climate change deniers is Christopher Monckton, who claims to be a member of the British House of Lords (a claim rejected by the House of Lords). Monckton testified before a Senate committee in May and presented such outlandish B.S. about climate that experts (such as John Mashey, Tim Lambert, John Abraham, and Barry Bickmore, to name a few) spent uncounted hours and pages and pages refuting just a subset of his errors.
Third Place. The false claim that a single weather event, such as a huge snowstorm in Washington, D.C., proves there is no global warming.
In February 2010 a big winter storm dumped record piles of snow on the mid-Atlantic U.S., including Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, prompting climate change deniers to use bad weather to try to discredit the reality of global warming. Limbaugh said, "It's one more nail in the coffin for the global warming thing." Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe got attention with an igloo on the national mall and labeled it "Al Gore's new home" (combining bad science with a personal attack). Senator Jim DeMint said, "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'"
Record snowfall is not an indicator of a lack of global warming, as has been pointed out in the scientific literature and many, many rounds of Congressional testimony. It merely means that there was a storm and temperatures were close to or below freezing. Indeed global warming can contribute to greater snowfalls by providing extra moisture. Many scientists testifying before the Senate and House of Representatives have explained the difference between a steadily warming planet and occasional extreme cold events in particular spots. But we can expect to see more examples of this kind of B.S. when it gets cold and snowy somewhere, sometime, this winter.
Second Place. The claim that the "Climategate" emails meant that global warming was a hoax, or was criminal, as Senator Inhofe tried to argue. In fact, it was none of these things (though the British police are still investigating the illegal hacking of a British university's computer system and the theft of the emails).
Global warming deniers used out-of-context texts from the stolen emails to claim that global warming was a hoax or that scientists had manipulated data or were hiding evidence that climate change wasn't happening. These claims are all B.S. A series of independent scientific and academic investigations in the U.S. and the U.K. unanimously concluded that nothing in the stolen emails made any difference to the remarkable strength of climate science (see, for example, the Penn State vindication, the Independent Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh reviews, a British Parliamentary Panel review, and other assessments). Unfortunately, the media gave far more attention to the accusations than to the resounding vindications, and climate deniers continue to spread B.S. about this case.
The bottom line of "Climategate?" As a letter in Science magazine signed by 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences said in May 2010: "There is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change."
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2010 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARD
First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: "There has been no warming since 1998" [or 2000, or...], "the earth is cooling," "global warming is natural," and "humans are too insignificant to affect the climate." Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.
The reality is that the Earth's climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors. The reality of climatic change can no longer be disputed on scientific grounds - the U.S. National Academy of Sciences calls the human-induced warming of the Earth a "settled fact." The evidence for a "warming" planet includes not just rising temperatures, but also rising sea levels, melting Arctic sea ice, disappearing glaciers, increasing intense rainfalls, and many other changes that matter to society and the environment. The recent and ongoing warming of the Earth is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause.
This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers, and far too often in real media outlets. Actual science and observations from around globe have long shown the opposite (for example, here and here are nice rebuttals with real science). The planet continues to warm rapidly largely due to human activities, and average global temperatures continue to rise. The most recent decade has been the warmest decade on record and 2010 will likely go down as either the warmest or second warmest year in recorded history.
Associated B.S. argues that the famous "hockey stick" graph has been disproved. This graph shows the extraordinarily rapid warming of the twentieth century compared to the previous 1000 years. The graph and analysis have been upheld by subsequent researchers and numerous scientific assessments, including one from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
To the winners: congratulations, it is long past time your B.S. is recognized for what it is -- bad science.
And to the public and the media: be forewarned: all of these and similar bad arguments will certainly be repeated in 2011. It is long past time that this bad science is identified, challenged, and shown to be the B.S. that it is.
The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team
Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, John Cook, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.
(* "B.S." means "Bad Science," doesn't it?)
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
If we will start build new power plants for area of residents close enough to plant to use as electricity as heat, we could reduce needs for energy at least 4 times. (Some energy we could lose anyway).
In this power plants wood could provide more useful energy, than right now coal, natural gas, or petroleum.
Smoke from coal, natural gas, or petroleum is toxic for forests.
Smoke from wood we could put in water to watering forests, surrounding power plants.
Together with ash it will be the best nutrition to grow trees.
As I mention before:
“It cost money to grow trees, and why we need grow them if most of population have doubt about climate change, especially in time of recession.”
If we will use wood, or mix of wood, coal, natural gas, or petroleum in environmentally save proportion it will be good reason to grow trees.
Changing our transportation system, our electricity production, growing trees as source of energy will give remarkable possibilities for USA, Mexico and Canada:
1. We could be energy independent;
2. We could make 100% of employment, therefore and insurance,
3. We could fight climate change with only tree countries in the world- USA, Canada, and Mexico, North America influent climate from France to Japan.
We could set example to the world in economically best way.
burning trees for energy = bad
"higher energy efficiency = good
burning trees for energy = bad"
In huge power plant we are losing 80% of fuel energy in vain.
If we will start build small power plant to use as electricity as heat, wood could provide more useful energy, than oil or coal product right now.
Smoke from oil and coal is toxic for trees, wood is not.
We could put all smoke from oven in water to watering these trees. Together with ash it will be the best nutrition to grow trees.
It could be electicity and heat production with almost zero emission.
IT MUST BE YOUR DREAM, OR.
In huge power plant we are losing 80% of fuel energy in vain. -- 80% IT IS NUMBER
Smoke from oil and coal is toxic for trees, wood is not. -- SMOKE FROM COAL AND OIL ARE TOXIC FOR PLANT--100%, WOOD IS NOT--0%
We could put all smoke from oven in water to watering these trees. ALL SMOKE--100%
It could be electicity and heat production with almost zero emission. ZERO EMISSION--IS 0%
IT MUST BE YOUR DREAM, OR.
Where is your number?
Power plant
The burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, or petroleum) in power plant.
In hot gas (gas turbine), turbines are driven directly by gases produced by the combustion of natural gas or oil.
Gas turbine plants are driven by both steam and natural gas. They generate power by burning natural gas and use residual heat to generate additional electricity from steam. These plants offer efficiencies of up to 60%.”
In grid we are loosing more than 7% of energy. It means 11.6% of energy of fuel. 60%-11.6%=48.4
According maximum power theorem, resistance of source of energy must be close to resistance of load. In source of energy we are loosing around 50% of energy. 48.4/2=24.2
Efficiency of load in average is less than 80%. 24.2 x0.8=19.36
Not all plant has up to 60% of efficiency. And if you will speak with Engineers from usual power plants it is common – 13% of efficiency.
As you see efficiency of power plant, which is common for USA is less than 20%.
In Riga, capital of Latvia, compact beautiful city with population around 1,000,000, residents receive from power plant electricity, heat, and hot water.
Transportation system:
Perhaps mass (m) of car is 2,000 kg, mass of driver 100 kg and speed (V) of car 65 miles per hour or 110.5 km/hour or 30.7 m/sec
Kinetic energy of this car will be as follows:
K=1/2mv²=1/2 x 2100 x 30.7 x 30.7=1/2 x2100 x 942
As you can see in this case, the mass of car and its driver change the amount of kinetic energy twice more than the speed.
It is less important, if we drive on strait road without stop on long distance.
Butt usually it is traffic, or driving in city with stop on every light.
We are losing energy in vain.
If we will analyze situation with public transportation—cars, busses, trains, high speeds transportation situation will be even worst than for car. These types of transportation are heavier than car and Have many people aboard, which will wait few people going in and out.
It will be better to move one person on small cart with weight 20 Lb.
To escape engine, transmission, tires road must move this cart,
To escape fuel tank, fuel, exhaust system, electricity must be as source of energy.
To escape losing of energy on every stop roads for this cart must be without intersection.
We can’t move usual car on third floor or roof. It is possible for this 20 Lb. cart.
The best tools to increase evaporation on the land are trees. Their roots are bigger than in most others plants on the earth. These roots will take water from deeper level of the land. They are taking carbon dioxide from air, while growing.
At the same time we must understand that in mature forest s is always equilibrium between taking carbon dioxide and providing oxygen by process of photosynthesis and taking back oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide by process of decaying.
If water evaporation is cooling the atmosphere in result it is easy to say –let grow trees to evaporate water on continents.
It will save us from climate change.
In this case we have some restriction from economical and political points of views.
It cost money to grow trees, and why we need grow them if most of population have doubt about climate change, especially in time of recession.
To help solve these problems, let analyze our transportation system and energy production in USA.
mioffe:
"At the same time we must understand that in mature forest s is always equilibrium between taking carbon dioxide and providing oxygen by process of photosynthesis and taking back oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide by process of decaying."
If an entire forest dies at once, then it releases a great deal of CO₂ in decay, but normally that isn't the case. And every tree in every forest has to grow *before* it can die and begin to decay. So other than deforestation by heavy logging, epidemics like pine beetle (more common and more devastating because of CO₂ caused global warming), and forest fires (also more common and more devastating because of CO₂ caused global warming), forests release more O₂ than CO₂.
I'm not so sure about that.
mioffe:
"At the same time we must understand that in mature forest ..."
Please pay attention "IN MATURE FOREST"
In helthy mature forest, without logging, epidemics like pine beetle, and forest fires it will be mostly around equilibrium between releasing and taken back ohygen.
It will be true as for taiga of Siberia, as for Canadian forest, as for rainforest of Brazil.
Of course it will be always influence by increasing or decreasing of temperature, moisture, etc.
Before industrial era, it was around 285 ppm of CO2, in air as result of this equilibrium.
If an entire forest dies at once, then it releases a great deal of CO₂ in decay, but normally that isn't the case. And every tree in every forest has to grow *before* it can die and begin to decay. So other than deforestation by heavy logging, epidemics like pine beetle (more common and more devastating because of CO₂ caused global warming), and forest fires (also more common and more devastating because of CO₂ caused global warming), forests release more O₂ than CO₂.
texfly
If properties of water actually cooling air despite waters vapor is a GHG, we have completely different tools to fight climate change.
Imaging that earth will be without continents. Only equally deep water of one ocean cover earth.
In this case, in my opinion will be less movement of air from equator to poles, than right now, when we have as continents as oceans. Climate on this imaginary planet will be more stable.
North America is very important for climate on the earth. It shaped as triangle, with angle close to equator and opposite side close to North Pole.
Mankind activities, as I mention before, reduce on all continents reflection of direct sun radiation and evaporation of water. In summer times it helps to heat continent.
Air in result will be hotter on continent than on surrounding Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
Huge convection forces in result creates winds, which mostly in summer times are going approximately in direction from San Diego to Quebec (Canada). These winds will help transport heat from equator to North Pole.
In winter times North America is cooler than Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
It helps bring cold from North Pole.
If somehow we will increase evaporation of water on North American continent, close to level of evaporation on Pacific and Atlantic these movement for heat and cold will be less.
I agree that T-gradient drive convection and because T close to oceans less than T on continent and T of Pacific is less than T of Atlantic, is main reason, why in summer time we see winds are going mostly in direction from San Diego to Quebec (Canada). These winds will help transport heat from equator to North Pole.
texfly,
It dynamic process will be repeated thousands times on unstoppable movement of air together with water vapor to upper troposphere, where so cold that most water vapor will condense to create water droplets. As droplets became heavier they will not support by Brownian motion to be on the same height and will start their movement to earth surface. It is also dynamic process, when sizes of droplet increased by involving more water vapor and decrease by process of evaporation.
Condensation of water droplets on upper troposphere creates unstoppable process of emitting photons belonging to specific band of water.
Closer inspection show, that the absorption of carbon dioxide is not overlapping with the absorption of water vapor and water vapor is absorbing more strongly only in the lower atmosphere.
WHAT IT MEANS? Most of photons, which going to space do not a lot of water vapor there to interact with these photons and will go to space.
Properties of water transport huge energy of evaporation from ocean, ground level and any droplet in air from earth surface to upper troposphere.
BY CONDENSATION PROCESS THIS ENERGY ON UPPER TROPOSPHERE IS GOING TO SPACE.
mioffe:
"Condensation of water droplets on upper troposphere creates unstoppable process of emitting photons belonging to specific band of water."
For this process, you need to compare the absorption spectrum of CO₂ to the emission spectrum of water, not its absorption spectrum.
mioffe:
"... Closer inspection show, that the absorption of carbon dioxide is not overlapping with the absorption of water vapor and water vapor is absorbing more strongly only in the lower atmosphere."
WHAT IT MEANS? Most of photons, which going to space do not a lot of water vapor there to interact with these photons and will go to space."
This is in fact how we know that, although water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, CO₂ still adds to the planet's total greenhouse effect.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S2
The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) As Hulburt and Callendar had claimed, the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway.
“Condensation of water droplets on upper troposphere creates unstoppable process of emitting photons belonging to specific band of water.”
As a droplet it’s radiation will be governed by Planck radiation, not banded H2O emission. That will depend on the droplet T. The droplet T will be higher than local bath T for some time and may radiate. But that radiation will look more like gray-body than H2O molecule.
The absorption of that radiation will depend on the optical depth of GHG (including H2O) above it. The droplet will produce more photons in the CO2 15μ band than in the H2O 6 μm band. So when the altitude is high enough that the concentration of H2O
texfly,
At the same time properties of water, if we analyze their behavior in troposphere and stratosphere actually cooling the air, in my opinion, despite water vapor GHG.
How it’s happen?
We need 539 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water. This energy cools the air close to source of evaporation. If we have source of water, ice we have unstoppable process of evaporation, which make unstoppable process of cooling area, close to source of evaporation.
Molecule of water vapor needs energy to go from surface to overcome bonds with others molecules on surface. Energy of this molecule outside water does not increase temperature of closest air. It is not “hot”, as could someone suggest. Only if this molecule will came close enough to water surface, including surface of water droplet, WILL BE RELEASED ENERGY.
As lighter than most gases in air water vapor helps create convection forces (together with heat provided by sun and others sources of energy). Density of air with more water droplet is less than density of air with less water vapor, with the same others condition.
It creates unstoppable process of movement water droplets together with others gases Up to clouds level.
On this movement many molecules will create droplets, or will came so close to other droplet, that will forced to became parts of droplet. IN THIS PROCESS OF CONDENSATION energy will be released, and heat air, close to condensation. Hotter air will forced by convection forces GO UP.
mioffe:
"Hotter air will forced by convection forces GO UP."
Yes. That is how convection works. Do you recognize that its temperature profile means that convection cannot be the primary means of mixing in the troposphere?
"On this movement many molecules will create droplets, or will came so close to other droplet, that will forced to became parts of droplet. IN THIS PROCESS OF CONDENSATION energy will be released, and heat air, close to condensation. Hotter air will forced by convection forces GO UP".
Condensation released heat, and that heat create new convection forces.
mioffe:
"Hotter air will forced by convection forces GO UP."
Yes, of course. That is how convection works. Do you recognize that its temperature profile means that convection cannot be the primary means of mixing in the troposphere?
I say it cools the liquid not the air. I will concede that the new gas phase (that evaporated from the liquid) molecule is “born” with no excess energy. It’s energy is determined by T(ocean) as kinetic energy. So now ΔHvap is a mute point in your argument that only comes into play when a condensation event occurs. And this energy will help drive vertical convection. When it is exchanged with the bath gas.
texfly,
We reduce on all continents reflection back to space of direct sun radiation, and evaporation of water.
We did that by building roads, houses, buildings, by tilling land for crop production and harvesting, by cover white snow by soot, by deforestation, by using energy, which also heat the air, and many others similar reason.
DID SCIENTISTS KNOW THESE REASON? YES, THEY ARE.
These reason they include in model in every small area, on which they divide all surface of earth.
As population are growing these reasons also growing.
It is too difficult for scientists calculate influence of these reasons (reflection and evaporation.) They are changing every second by condition on the land, by changing angle of reflection by movement of sun, by clouds, aerosols, etc.
Their result influences could be put in model (data of speed and direction of wind, temperature, etc,) which for every area do not change so rapidly as reflection and evaporation.
Scientists still could put in computer average of water vapor and amount of CO2 in air, which increase from year to year, the same as temperature accordingly.
In result scientists proclaim that water vapor increasing together with carbon dioxide from year to year responsible for climate change.
Bottom line is that climate scientists do know of this and the net is to increase T.
I am also not scientists, which create models.
DID SCIENTISTS KNOW THESE REASON? YES, THEY ARE.
These reason they include in model in every small area, on which they divide all surface of earth.
I think this is accurate enough.
As I understand climate models, scientists collect all possible data from small areas, on which they divide all surface of earth.
When they put these data to computer it is possible to forecast weather on weak or more ahead.
In climate models it is posibble to put these changes in temperature in every areas day by day, during all years, when they have reliable data, and analyzing tendency make prognoses years ahead.
Their prognoses are correct and depend how many data they put in model.
WHY I THINK THAT EXPLANATION OF REASON FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ARE WRONG.
Of course carbon dioxide make average temperature growing, it increase evaporation of water vapor, they both GHG and responsible for dynamic trapping and emission of photons, their energy always interacting with others gases in air, which correlated with temperature.
In my opinion PROPERTIES OF WATER IN RESULT COOLING AIR, DESPITE WATER VAPOR IS GHG.
It contradict with fact, calculated by scientist, and confirmed by measurement, but I am insist that properties of water actually cooling air. WHY I AM THINKING THAT I AM STILL CORRECT DESPITE 98% OF SCIENTISTS AND MEASUREMENT ARE NOT ON MY SIDE?
In my opinion we have many others reason to heat air.
Mankind activities not only increase carbon dioxide.
Thank you very much! I was surprised to read compliments from you. Let go on that direction and forget about some others "compliments" to each others.
Anyway, thank you.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
If you read a paper like
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135
it appears that the recent T data were used to derive forcings that were then used in the models, not the actual T-data themselves. In other words, the modeling wasn’t a cyclic argument that used T-data to create a model that reproduced the same T-data. Modeling doesn’t work like that.
In this particular paper recent T-data were used to extract GHG forcings that were applied to paleo data of CO2 and estimates of ice cover to “predict” what the T and sea-level history would be from 420 kya to now.
I asked at one point to name 10 other things that override CO2 in heating the climate. Just give me your top 3 with estimates of how much they contribute to the 0.8C warming on the last 50 years I’m waiting.
"Hot vapor of any kind, H2O, N2, O2 will drive vertical thermals. They all contribute. Considering the numbers the convection is a N2/O2 event although it may have been forced by hot H2O off the ocean surface."
I agree with this, but please pay attention on your:
"Hot vapor..."
Molecule of water need energy to tear surface bonds with other molecules and, when it's happen energy of molecule could be not so "hot" as in molecules of water vapor in supperheated steam.
Influence on temperature on air close to surface of water from this vapor could be close to zero.
Sorry for repetition:
Convection forces in this case of evaporation will occur not only because of "hot" molecule, which go from surface, but mostly because density of air close to water surface less, than in air with not so many molecules of water vapor. These convection forces move up not only water vapor, N2, O2..,but also water droplets, which produced close to surface of water (fog).
Maybe I am wrong, in my opinion your explanation create illusion that evaporation create so hot molecules, which mostly responsibble for convection. If so it is not true. Nobody burns, when close to equatorial hot water evaporated a lot of water and convection forces creates hurricane.
texfly:
"The heat of vaporization cools the body of water not the air around it, That happens later when sufficient evaporation has occurred. That hot vapor will rise and in collisions will heat the bath gas (N2 and O2) and H2O and will cool to a common T (lower for H2O, higher for N2/O2) You chose to ignore this dynamic. Hot vapor of any kind, H2O, N2, O2 will drive vertical thermals. They all contribute. Considering the numbers the convection is a N2/O2 event although it may have been forced by hot H2O off the ocean surface. Have you ever seen Old Faithful? It is a plume of superheated steam. Is goes up a few hundred feet. By your logic the plume should shoot up to the stratosphere -- it does not. Why? Collisions with cooler N2/O2."
mioffe:
"Molecule of water need energy to tear surface bonds with other molecules and, when it's happen energy of molecule could be not so "hot" as in molecules of water vapor in supperheated steam."
Nobody said it could. Your "ideas" are so ridiculous that even if all water vapor on Earth was that hot, your "ideas" still wouldn't work.
mioffe:
Question: “Will this energy trapped in carbon dioxide above troposphere?”
Of course NOT:
**Band of energy** of photons, which is trapped in water vapor is different from carbon dioxide.
Photon of energy of condensation on top of troposphere is correlated with energy needed to take molecule of water from water Droplets on the same height. It is also can’t be taken by carbon dioxide or others GHG, which located up of troposphere.
"That hot vapor will rise and in collisions will heat the bath gas (N2 and O2) and H2O and will cool to a common T (lower for H2O, higher for N2/O2)"
"That hot vapor will rise..."
Molecule of water need energy to tear surface bonds with other molecules and, when it's happen energy of molecule could be not so "hot" as in molecules of water vapor in supperheated steam.
Convection forces in this case of evaporation will occur not only because of "hot" molecule, which go from surface, but mostly because density of air close to water surface less, than in air with not so many molecules of water vapor. These convection forces move up not only water vapor, N2, O2..,but also water droplets, which produced close to surface of water (fog).
"..and in collisions will heat the bath gas (N2 and O2) and H2O and will cool to a common T (lower for H2O, higher for N2/O2)"
It is true.
At the same time when air will be cooler, new water DROPLETS will produced and released heat of condensation will heat the air and this process create new convection forces as from heat as for reason that density of air with more water vapor is less, than in air, where amount of water vapor is less (in the same volume.)
Real picture in nature more complicated, but I have only 5 words in reserve and omit next explanation.
Pharos:
"It is important for interested readers to know that the nonsense you [mioffe] post should be ignored as it has no connection to reality. You have absolutely refused to acknowledge what others have tried to explain to you. As to your claim to understand A&M physics, it is patently laughable. I do not wish to be mean but you are giving me little choice. You talk about photon absorption so let me ask you this. Photons have a spin of one. Photons are absorbed in the processes you (sort of ) describe. Photons with a spin of +1 or -1 are circularly polarised. Can a linearly polarised photon exist or is the concept one of averages over many photons? And finally what is the angular momentum of a linearly polarised photon if you think they actually can exist (hint, yes they exist). I want an explanation in terms of eigenstates. Almost no one but another scientist will understand what I am talking about - that is not the point. I want any non-scientist reading here to understand you have demonstrated no understanding of science as a discipline and you have shown no understanding of scientific knowledge."
"I want an explanation of your "ideas" about the advanced topics in physics on which you assert that all climate scientists are wrong"
As many times before you again misquote me. I never wrote "that all climate scientists are wrong"
I wrote that their reasons for climate change, in my opinion wrong"
Do you see difference? Or again we will spent time like in case mioffe - upper atmosphere, quote by you UPER STRATOSPHERE.
"and I want that explanation in terms of eigenstates, not a textbook definition of "eigenconvector" (sic)."
iN RUSSIAN WE HAVE GOOD PROVERB, WICH I could translate in English like "wishing is not harmful"
Pharos:
"It is important for interested readers to know that the nonsense you [mioffe] post should be ignored as it has no connection to reality..."
I answer to Pharos, why you not him ask this question?
We have another proverb:
Scientist knew everything about nothing, while engineer - nothing about everithing.
Nothing in this case used for humor and mean very small.
It has advantage. When Engineer need solve problem he could see in many direction and it help him to found solution. If I am seriously will need to solve problem, believe me I will solve it.
It is ridiculous to solve problem only if you or Pharos ask me. As with previous task from Pharos I named few words, which explain direction of my thought. When he ask explanation- I wrote more.
Not him, nor you answer on my questions.
I have accurately *described* your claim as an assertion that all legitimate, professional climate scientists' explanation of global warming is wrong.
mioffe:
"I am writing that scientists of climate change wrong in explanation of reason for climate change."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/mioffe/the-2010-climate-bs-of-th_b_802906_72799637.html
With no published research and no other scientific credentials of any kind, you claim that all the competent experts are wrong. That claim is ridiculous. I will continue to phrase my comments to you to emphasize the fact that your claim is ridiculous. I am not misquoting you. Your accusations are all lies.
mioffe:
"I answer to Pharos, why you not him ask this question?"
First, as the one making the claim that the scientific consensus is wrong, it is you that owes explanations to all of us, not any of us who owes you anything.
Secondly, your answers to Pharos on this question have all been garbage. Of the three of us, you were the only one that did not already know the definition of an eigenvector. Copying and pasting that definition does not address Pharos' request to you for "an explanation in terms of eigenstates." (not eigenvectors nor "eigenconvectors" (sic) )
His request is perfectly clear and simple -- to a real physicist. You are obviously not.
It is more complicated, in my opinion, let omit discussion on this topic.
"Have you ever seen Old Faithful? It is a plume of superheated steam. Is goes up a few hundred feet. By your logic the plume should shoot up to the stratosphere -- it does not. Why? Collisions with cooler N2/O2."
Despite collision, despite condensation and evaporation, which will occur many times (as Dynamic) most of that vapor will go to clouds level.
Some DROPLETS OF THAT DYNAMIC WILL GO DOWN AND PARTIALLY EVAPORATE BACK TO GOING UP WATER VAPOR.
"Water will condense forming droplets and clouds at lower altitudes"
We have different type of clouds.
"- hot air will drive droplets higher and they will ultimately freeze both condensation a freezing will liberate energy."
It is also more complicated. Let omit.
mioffe:
"It is more complicated, in my opinion, let omit discussion on this topic... It is also more complicated. Let omit."
Because you know you're wrong.
"You know you're full of it."
mioffe:
"It is more complicated, in my opinion, let omit discussion on this topic... It is also more complicated. Let omit."
I omit, because I go to sleep, but see above my two new posts. Thank you, for watching me.
"Because you know you're wrong."
It is possible, if you will found in explanation above mistakes.
mioffe:
"Some DROPLETS OF THAT DYNAMIC WILL GO DOWN AND PARTIALLY EVAPORATE BACK TO GOING UP WATER VAPOR."
What do you predict is the total impact of this on global mean temperature?
mioffe:
"Some DROPLETS OF THAT DYNAMIC WILL GO DOWN AND PARTIALLY EVAPORATE BACK TO GOING UP WATER VAPOR."
What do you predict is the total impact of this on global mean temperature?"
For few Droplets total impact will be close to zero.
For all properties of water, especially, if we will grow forests on continents and increase amount of water vapor in atmosphere It COULD BE SOLUTION TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE, AND IF WE:
Will build small power plants, small carts (20 Lb.), grow forests for fuel it will solve all problem of USA.
In this case we will make North American countries energy independent, create 100% of employment and fight climate change only by USA, Canada and Mexico.
I am writing here to improve my English, thank you for attempt to understand it.
"The heat of vaporization cools the body of water not the air around it,"
I agree with you partially (see below).
"That happens later when sufficient evaporation has occurred."
Evaporation of water, ice in nature unstopoble process and therefore cool air also unstopoble.
"That hot vapor"
Are you telling that temperature of H2O evaporated from ice will be 100 deg of C? If so will later cool to a common T (lower for H2O)?
"will rise and in collisions will heat the bath gas (N2 and O2) and H2O and will cool to a common T (lower for H2O, higher for N2/O2)"
I agree with you, but it is more complicated.
"You chose to ignore this dynamic."
I am not ignoring this dynamic. In any post only 250 words.
After my very long post last night, it occured to me that you are absolutely correct in your 539 kcal/kg heat loss creating large vertical convection. . We can differ in the details but I can see your point. I can even see those thermals reaching the stratosphere and unltimatrly enhancing heat transfer to space. Agian I differ with your "details". It finally occured to me that one word can describe your many posts along this line:
HURRICANE!
Ideed hurricanes are natures way of rapidly dissapating build ups of thermal energy. You seem to have a decent English vocabulary - you make few spelling errors, only synax errrors that strain your logic. But surely, the word "hurricane" or "typhoon" is in your vocabulary.
As for you geometry of N America hypothesis, there is another word for it: WEATHER. If you wish to go into a diatribe of how continental shape affect weather post away. To me it is all hyperbole.
This is an amazing fact, given that the 20th Century was when mankind added increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, which was supposed to cause accelerating man-made global warming.
So how do we explain December 2010, which was second only to December 1890 over the last 300 years?
All the man-made CO2 released during the 20th Century didn't prevent December, 2010 from being colder than any of the 100 Central English Decembers of the 20th Century!
The observed impact of the CO2 appears to have been either very slight or simply non-existent. Not enough for anyone to worry about their Carbon footprint.
So up until now, the severely cold winters have been associated with cooling cycles in England.
Recognizing that there was a warming cycle during the late 20th Century, the Dickens' December of 2010 appears to be a "marker" for there now being a "cold cycle in English weather." During the historic cold cycles, cold winters occur more frequently, and sometimes there are the severely cold Decembers as in 2010.
One could develop a hypothesis that the Dickens' December is evidence that we are now in a cold climate cycle.
What alternative hypothesis is there to explain the Dickens' December?
You are right, but snow in England and North America could be explain without science of climate change and their models.
I agree about the snow in Europe. If you take a step back and see the big picture, climate has affected the situation.
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/05/06/paper-by-william-gray-and-barry-schwartz-water-vapor-feedback-is-negative/
SoCalHotOne. Participating in HP climate discussions for 260 days now. Has yet to make a single accurate scientific contribution. Makes it a point to link to peripheral junk science sites, often ideological sites. Climate deniers, never informed, and never in doubt.
"Density of air on top of atmosphere is 25% of density of air on ocean level. Its mean, that distances between molecules in upper troposphere are bigger, than on ocean level.
It also true for carbon dioxide and that distances increased with every miles up."
How much? Numbers are required, not adjectives. So go look up the mean free path and do the calculations before you pop off that all legitimate climate scientists are supposedly wrong. They're not. You are.
Thank you for humor in founding my typo, please keep working in this direction.
"mioffe, think man." I have problems-thank you or not (maybe it is your sarcasm on)
"You know water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas..."
Yes, I repeat many times - PROPERTIES OF WATER ACTUALLY COOL THE AIR despite water vapor is GHG.
Link, provided by SoCalHotOne confirm some my thought about topic.
"You have been talking about it for weeks."
It is not true. I am talking abot this during 5 years - you could check insite willyoujoinus.com, sorry at that time i did not know that it site provided by "bad oil company".
"If more water vapor is present, it can capture more IR and warm the atmosphere further. Does that sound like negative feedback to you?"
It is positive feedback, but if we will look on all properties of water feedback is negative.
"SoCalHotOne. Participating in HP climate discussions for 260 days now. Has yet to make a single accurate scientific contribution. Makes it a point to link to peripheral junk science sites, often ideological sites. Climate deniers, never informed, and never in doubt."
I predict that someone will say about junk science yesterday, but it was deemed.
I did not look for post of SoCalHotOne 260 day, but he provide good link, nobody wrote on that link that it is just junk.
How you recognize junk science, good or bad Companies?
It is riddle for me.
"It is positive feedback, but if we will look on all properties of water feedback is negative."
Yes, water vapor has various mechanisms. But, I think you need to establish a relative scale for those mechanisms. Which effects are strongest. Which effects are weaker. Water vapor evaporates. It condenses. It captures IR. It exchanges energy kinetically as a gas molecule.
There is a lot going on, yet the atmosphere is warming, not cooling. Globally, not locally.
As a reality check, consider two things. The atmosphere is not cooling, and water vapor is the most important GHG.
(2) # of references by peers
mioffe:
"How you recognize junk science, good or bad Companies?"
The above is not all, but it is better than the standards you are applying so far. Start with those two standards, and gradually your opinions will become much less polluted by climate deniar junk science.