climate change

[trichrider]

i dunno man...

i've already stated that water is created in the stratosphere chemically. thought i posted the link too.

i dunno man...
the trillions of gallons of petroleum extracted from the earth creating subsidence? fat floats....

i dunno man...
whether or not you'd even believe if i did post the source .... but here ya go:

Evolution of Water Vapor Concentrations and Stratospheric Age of Air in Coupled Chemistry-Climate Model Simulations
John Austin, John Wilson, and Feng Li

NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey
Holger Vömel

CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado



Abstract

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations and age of air are investigated in an ensemble of coupled chemistry-climate model simulations covering the period from 1960 to 2005. Observed greenhouse gas concentrations, halogen concentrations, aerosol amounts, and sea surface temperatures are all specified in the model as time-varying fields. The results are compared with two experiments (time-slice runs) with constant forcings for the years 1960 and 2000, in which the sea surface temperatures are set to the same climatological values, aerosol concentrations are fixed at background levels, while greenhouse gas and halogen concentrations are set to the values for the relevant years.

The time-slice runs indicate an increase in stratospheric water vapor from 1960 to 2000 due primarily to methane oxidation. The age of air is found to be significantly less in the year 2000 run than the 1960 run. The transient runs from 1960 to 2005 indicate broadly similar results: an increase in water vapor and a decrease in age of air. However, the results do not change gradually. The age of air decreases significantly only after about 1975, corresponding to the period of ozone reduction. The age of air is related to tropical upwelling, which determines the transport of methane into the stratosphere. Oxidation of increased methane from enhanced tropical upwelling results in higher water vapor amounts. In the model simulations, the rate of increase of stratospheric water vapor during the period of enhanced upwelling is up to twice the long-term mean. The concentration of stratospheric water vapor also increases following volcanic eruptions during the simulations.

Keywords: Greenhouse gases, Chemistry, atmospheric, Water vapor, Stratosphere, Coupled models

Received: October 27, 2005; Final Form: July 5, 2006

Corresponding author address: Dr. John Austin, NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08542-0308. Email: [email protected]

"b. Methane oxidation It is recognized that methane oxidation is an important source of stratospheric water (Jones and Pyle 1984; Remsberg et al. 1984; Le Texier et al. 1988). This issue was investigated by exploring the total hydrogen in the model, which is conserved under mixing and transport. The quantity is given by H = H2O + 2 × CH4 + H2CO + H2 (plus additional radicals). Le Texier et al. (1988) provide a comprehensive analysis of methane oxidation and the number of water vapor molecules produced per methane molecule oxidized, here denoted by α. Conservation of H implies that α may differ from 2.0. Over long time scales in the absence of nonconservative processes H should then be uniform. An approximation of H by neglecting the last two terms has indeed been shown to be uniform in the stratosphere (e.g., Jones and Pyle 1984; Remsberg et al. 1984; Randel et al. 2004). However, this is not a particularly demanding test of conservation. Figure 5 shows model results from run TRANSA for January and July 2000 of the water vapor and H′ = H, but with the last two terms approximated by a constant 0.5 ppmv. The contour interval of H′ is one-tenth the contour interval for H2O, indicating that in the absence of nonconservative processes, H′ is uniform in the model to a much higher precision than can be measured. In the stratosphere there is some structure in the fields due to the approximation of the last two terms. Nonconservative processes, condensation, and evaporation occur in the troposphere and in the winter Antarctic lower stratosphere, as can be seen in the figure panels for July. Similar results occur for other years examined. This confirms that to a precision of about 0.05 ppmv, CH4 oxidation can be taken as the major source term for water vapor.


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3866.1

"The structure and variability of H2O and CH4 are tightly coupled in the stratosphere, because CH4 oxidation is a principal source of stratospheric H2O (e.g., Remsberg et al. 1984)."

http://crawl.prod.proquest.com.s3.amazonaws.com/fpcache/28961dd2e8d1bfa4e4574f9aacc54f8d.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF7V7KNV2KKY2NUQ&Expires=1453328083&Signature=SdN8Xta%2FeKupYr3BDTtBognZTD0%3D

 

[strandloper]

you don't seem to understand what you posted Trichrider.

"CH4 oxidation can be taken as the major source term for water vapor."

that's what the research paper is about, water vapor in the stratosphere, It doesn't have anything to do with why the ocean is rising. It may pertain somehow to how the seas originally formed, but not to the presently measurable observation that the ocean is rising.

 

[trichrider]

what?
ok , where does the water vapor created by that reaction go?

you make water out of chemical interaction in the stratosphere of methane:

The structure and variability of H2O and CH4 are tightly coupled in the stratosphere, because CH4 oxidation is a principal source of stratospheric H2O (e.g., Remsberg et al. 1984).

water doesn't just disappear (not even vapor).

yes i believe it was the cause of most water on this planet, and certainly that paper justifies my contention that water arrives/is created constantly and is the source (perhaps of all water in universe) & of ours.

pardon me but i think you didn't read the material, did you?

 

[strandloper]

I don't disagree with how water is created in he universe.

I also don't see anything in that paper abstract that pertains to the current rate of change that is being measured presently in regards to the oceans rising.

Stratospheric water vapor is not being presented by scientists as a potential cause of the relatively fast ocean rise we are witnessing in our lifetime.

Do you know what an overwhelming amount of scientist say is causing the oceans to rise?

Temperature

 

[Dropped Cat]

Pierre R Latour, consulting chemical engeneer, his work history highlights
much history associated with oil refineries.

Wouldn't his work history color, if but slightly, his belief I wonder.

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but gotta go with the other 98% of the scientific
community on this whole climate change "theory".

 

[strandloper]

I should add that just because the majority of scientists agree on something it doesn't prove its correct.

science isn't a vote, yet paradigms seem to be...

so maybe scientist are wrong and there is some yet to be defined force that is creating this situation.

I truly do not know


though I am sure that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate is going to make for a bumpy ride ahead

 

[trichrider]

I don't disagree with how water is created in he universe.

I also don't see anything in that paper abstract that pertains to the current rate of change that is being measured presently in regards to the oceans rising.

Stratospheric water vapor is not being presented by scientists as a potential cause of the relatively fast ocean rise we are witnessing in our lifetime.

Do you know what an overwhelming amount of scientist say is causing the oceans to rise?

Temperature

water...

 

[trichrider]

we currently reside in an Inter-glacial Period.

it gets warm, glaciers melt, sea temperature rises, water evaporates, clouds form, it rains/snows, we re-enter glacial period...happens every time.

we have fuckall to do with the pattern...our contribution would be like putting cream in your coffee.

CO2 is not a poison at current concentrations and actually has very little impact on climate...and temperature...it's already been noted that CO2 lags temperature not the opposite.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

"To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below."

water vapor contributes up to 99% of greenhouse gas' contribution to warming (and cooling!).
water continuously forms from hydrogen ions (solar wind) baking rocks in space, and methane conversion in the stratosphere, and it stays here in one of at least three forms.
liquid, vapor, and ice (and possibly other forms)...

CO2 at 400ppm is a laughable 0.117%. astronauts and submariners are routinely exposed to significantly higher volume with little to no effect...(it's monitored).

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029352.pdf

for the life of me , i cannot find anything resembling a mechanism by which CO2 heats atmosphere. this was close...

Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m.[...]There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...the-atmosphere-on-the-molecular-level.410522/
:
MSDS # 1005
Carbon Dioxide

SECTION 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant. It initially stimulates respiration
and then causes respiratory depression. High concentrations result in narcosis. Symptoms in humans are as follows:
CONCENTRATION
EFFECT
1%
Slight increase in breathing rate
2%
Breathing rate increases to 50% above normal.
Prolonged exposure can cause headache and tiredness.
3%
Breathing increases to twice the normal rate and becomes labored. Weak narcotic effect. Impaired hearing, headache, increase in blood pressure and pulse rate.
4-5%
Breathing increases to approximately four times the normal rate,
symptoms of intoxication become evident and slight choking may be felt.
5-10%
Characteristic sharp odor noticeable. Very labored breathing,
headache, visual impairment and ringing in the ears. Judgment may be impaired, followed within minutes by loss of consciousness.
50-100%
Unconsciousness occurs more rapidly above 10% level.
Prolonged exposure to high concentrations may eventually result
in death from asphyxiation.

keep me up!

 

[igrowone]

co2 is not likely to be toxic in the concentrations that are expected to be present in the atmosphere
but it can't be called non toxic since it can be toxic at high enough concentrations
as far as the cause and effect of co2 and the retreat of ice ages
it is true that most ice ages retreated without increased levels of co2
their retreat began as part of solar/orbital cycles, co2 levels rose later
but that is not a good model for the current atmosphere/climate, conditions are quite different
co2 did reinforce the warming in previous epochs, it may have lagged but that doesn't mean it had no effect

 

[strandloper]

"we have fuckall to do with the pattern"


how could possibly know that?

you seem blinded by your beliefs, and its causing you to pick and choose the evidence based on what supports your ideas.

 

[Dropped Cat]

I should add that just because the majority of scientists agree on something it doesn't prove its correct.

A scientific consensus emerges when the weight of evidence
for a proposition becomes so great that serious researchers
stop arguing about it among themselves.

There’s quite a bit of scientific debate about lots of different aspects
of climate change, but the question of whether humans are causing
the planet to warm isn’t one of them.

…so maybe scientist are wrong and there is some yet to be defined force that is creating this situation.

But what if those three percent who reportedly reject the consensus are like Galileo,
who challenged the 16th century view that the sun revolved around the Earth?

John Abraham and five of his colleagues published a study earlier this year which
found that studies authored by climate contrarians “were often found to be unsubstantiated
by the data,” resulting in “criticisms, corrections, and in some cases, resignation of editors.”

They add: “the same fate has not befallen the prominent consensus studies.”

 

[trichrider]

http://realclimatescience.com/nasa-sea-level-fraud/

sea level change fraud from NOAA, NASA, IPCC

 

[trichrider]

 

[50YardLine]

http://realclimatescience.com/nasa-sea-level-fraud/

sea level change fraud from NOAA, NASA, IPCC

What do you mean? New York is underwater, Hawaii has been gone for a while now. Central cali is now the coast.......

Wait a minute, none of this has happened........hmmmmm...

I laughed out loud at a taxi driver in Hawaii. He was talking about how the beaches are disappearing in Hawaii. He told me he had been driving there for five years, and in those years ALL the beaches are disappearing. When I got to the hotel, a huge poster of the beach in 1950 was hanging. I looked at the guy and laughed, "this was 60+ years ago, looks the same to me." Then threw him a small tip and asked "next time if you want a bigger tip, then you shouldn't spew that nonsense."


Has anybody noticed that Mother Nature has become many people's God?

 

[armedoldhippy]

the beach at Daytona used to be a lot wider in the sixties. much of what is gone may just be loss of sand to various hurricanes, i don't know. have the streets of Miami ALWAYS flooded? there is photographic evidence that many low islands in the South Pacific are gradually going under. part of that may be the coral atolls dying from higher sea water temps; again, i don't know. some island groups are volcanic based, and are notoriously unstable, prone to collapse into themselves over time. if New York goes under, maybe it will take The Donald with it, we can always hope...

 

[igrowone]

beaches are not good places to gauge sea level
beaches move, erode, grow, etc.

 

[50YardLine]

Well, Nasa say's Cali has dropped 2 inches due to lack of water. Maybe the sea has just risen......

Good point Igrowone.

 

[Ununionized]

There's also the claim by Magic Gassers that there is a runaway green house effect on Venus.

This is CENTRAL to the Magic Sky Heater religion. You see it all over the internet: Magic Gais doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics.

There's a magical effect of green house warming that the laws of thermodynamics simply can't properly account for.

When in fact: SEVERAL people have done it showing how - there's no Green House effect on Venus.

NONE.

Not ANY.

In the Harvard Astrophysics Journal volume 149, Sept 1967, page 731:

there's Carl Sagan, working on a paper for NASA: he calculates the temperature of Venus at about 700K - there's no reference to some magical effect.

Then there's former government employee Harry Huffman who calculated it swiftly with the SIMPLEST of FLUID MECHANICS.

[Harry Huffman: setting the stage: no green house on Venus]

Online Magic Gas believing blogger Steve Goddard said ''I always thought someone had checked this and that there's a green house effect on Venus.''

Shows how swiftly and easily proper accounting hits the temperature of Venus RIGHT ON the MONEY.

He's surprised. "I've been believing there was a green house effect because people told me for years. It never occurred to me to just check.'' I guess that's why James Hansen never was very enthusiastic about discussing the information from the Venus and Mars probes.

[Steve Goddard: venus envy//hyperventilating on Venus.]

Then an astrophysicist who works at Harvard, Lubos MOTL: hears of Goddard's work. Can't believe it's true agrees to check. Says himself ''I always thought people had checked this element of Hansen's story.''

Surprised Motl himself says : Goddard's right: you can calculate the temperature of Venus with EASE - using SIMPLEST of FLUID MECHANICS.

[Lubos Motl the reference frame: hyperventilating on Venus]

All this on top of the fact Phil Jones confessed scamming records from 1998.

It's a government started church with physics compatible with pot's like heroin.

The people who claim to believe in it can't even go from step to step describing a planet with no atmosphere,

then WITH an atmosphere, then describe their claim the
FREEZING COLD
LIGHT blocking bath of frigid fluids

makes a rock hotter

than when there's NO frigid light robbing bath,

and the rock was receiving FULL warming sunlight.

 

[Ununionized]

When your church claims to be about scientific reality but it despises people checking it's stories and claims,

it's a religion not a scientific movement. Scientific reality defends itself. It's repeatable.

The only thing that's repeatable about the Magic Gas church is that it's members will be shown

(1)unable to explain their story without multiple violation of laws of physics several different ways

(2)unable to back up claims by their church that more warmth isn't good. Especially for biodiversity.

(3)unable to back up claims by their church that carbon dioxide isn't good. Especially for biodiversity.

(4)unable to REPEAT their CLAIMS in EXPERIMENTS claiming ''Our church is ABOVE experimental proof.''

These are all the hallmarks of fraud. Not of properly processed scientific inquiry.

Lastly there's the fact believers in Magic Sky Heater religion can't even defend themselves.

(5)unable usually to even discuss their belief and not embarrass themselves

is a BIG part of preaching Kook-0-Dynamics because the more, intelligent, educated people hear, the more they realize - you don't even know hot from cold.

You can't escape that ADDITIONAL factor casting a tall shadow over Magic Gas: the low quality scientific argument that is dredged up to ATTEMPT, to defend it.

 

[trichrider]

C. Maurice Strong, the extremely influential environmental scientist (?).

Despite the fact that he has no formal education, Strong is(was, he passed last Nov.) a member of the Royal Society of Great Britain and the Royal Society of Canada. As Head of United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), he wrote the “terms of reference” for climate research, defining climate change and global warming as strictly those changes caused by humans. By ignoring the much larger contributions of natural processes on climate change, Strong and his UN allies have been able to profoundly skew two decades of “scientific research” in the direction of computer modeling, wherein pre-programmed assumptions yield pre-determined conclusions. All this computer-based “research” gives the false impression that human industrial activities are causing dangerous global warming.

Simultaneously, Strong has been a major architect of international policies embedded in the Kyoto Protocol, which sets up a for-profit Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a worldwide “carbon trading” market in buying and selling the right to emit carbon dioxide. Hence, his participation as Founding Director of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Chinese Climate Exchange are extreme conflicts of interest.

please read the rest ....it is enlightening.

http://www.naturalclimatechange.us/EK%20NWReligion%20Html/Part%20I.%20%20Is%20Crestone12_31_11.htm