Global warming and causality.

"Published" it in a denier vanity fake-journal, like so much of your "science". You don't show us science. You push bad propaganda.

I am much better informed about the science than the guy you're quoting, a person who has zero experience in climate science. Thus, I am a better source. I can see right where he pooched it.

There are two types of residence time. Residence time for individual molecules, and residence time for CO2 levels as a whole.

Residence for individual molecules is mainly determined by exchange with the surface waters of the ocean. That's why it's short. The CO2 goes in, the CO2 goes out, but since the surface waters don't mix with the deep ocean, that doesn't change atmopheric CO2 levels. For total level to change, the ocean circulation has to take that CO2 laden surface ater down deep, and that happens on a scale of centuries.

Do you really want to keep digging here? What do you hope to accomplish by embracing garbage science, other than destroying your credibility?

 

Sorry, but I'll take the published, peer-reviewed science over an anonymous internet rant unmoored to any published research.

 

You're actually doubling down on your "appeal-to-a-really-dumb-authority" fallacy?

What can I say. Run on back to NoTricksZone and get some more vanity journal propaganda. Nobody in the scientific world will pay any attention to it, but it's great for preaching to the converted here.

 

Again, superior to an anonymous internet rant unmoored to any published research.
Entropy is a monthly open access scientific journal covering research on all aspects of entropy and information theory. It was established in 1999 and is published by MDPI. The journal occasionally publishes special issues compiled by guest editors.[1] The editor-in-chief is Kevin H. Knuth (University at Albany, SUNY).

Sections[edit]
Entropy consists of eight sections:[2]

• Thermodynamics Section
• Statistical Mechanics
• Information Theory
• Quantum Information
• Complexity
• Astrophysics and Cosmology
• Entropy Reviews
• Entropy and Biology

Abstracting and indexing[edit]
The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

• Chemical Abstracts Service
• Current Contents/Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• Inspec
• MathSciNet
• Science Citation Index Expanded
• Scopus
• Zentralblatt MATH

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2021 impact factor of 2.738.[3]

 

And the amount of water vapor is determined by the temperature, which is made warmer by increased CO2. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. This is basic stuff, and you fail at it.

I can't figure out what you're babbling about there.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...es-are-getting-stronger-as-the-climate-warms/

The sun is weak now. If your "it's the sun" theory was right, then the oceans would be cooling now, or at least warming at a decreasing rate, as they released previously stored heat to warm the atmosphere. Since the oceans are now warming strongly and steadily, your theory is disproved.

This isn't a debate. The directly observed data says your theory is wrong, therefore your theory is wrong. The intensity of your belief in your theory doesn't change that.

 

And the people running it know nothing about climate. It shows. They'll let any garbage through.

 

You lost.

 

Says the one who is sulking now instead of discussing the topic.

You don't have to embrace every bit of garbage science that your side sends down the pipe, you know. You can admit that some of it is junk, without abandoning your greater point completely. That way, you'd retain some credibility.

Unless, of course, you're too emotionally invested in the issue.

 

The debate's actually over. I'm not the one ranting instead of citing research. You lost.

 

You don't know any atmospheric physics or radiative heat transfer physics, so you fail at understanding the microscopic effect of additional CO2 on water vapor.

No, you do, because you accept the absurd and impossible overestimate of water vapor feedback.

Right, because you don't know any of the relevant physics.

SciAm is all climate hysteria all the time, and the article in question is garbage.

Its activity was unexpectedly strong last year.

That has been happening.

There is no credible empirical evidence that the oceans are warming strongly or steadily -- unless you count Al Gore's bizarre claim that they are "boiling."

You got that right.

The directly observed data says your theory is wrong, therefore your theory is wrong. The intensity of your belief in your theory doesn't change that.

 

I just realized Mamooth posted this baloney since official data doesn't support it:

The study in the link the one Mamooth never read uses a lot of modeling to make their incorrect conclusion.

Reality from several major countries that get Tropical storms and Hurricanes regularly every year all based on official data only.



and,



LINK

===

And there is much longer evidence to back that up. Here are the records of all hurricanes (left) and major hurricanes (right) that came ashore in the US in the last 150 years … NO increase. SOURCE: Nature magazine.


===


And here are the numbers of Pacific typhoons (hurricanes) from the Japanese Meteorological Agency.



===

Here are landfalling typhoons (hurricanes) in China. Like the majority of the world areas, we’re seeing fewer landfalls in China.



===

And here are a century and a half of records of the number of landfalling hurricanes in Florida.



===

Finally, here are the declining numbers of both strong and average cyclones in Australian waters, from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).



===

Then we have this from last year,

2022 Global Wide Hurricane Season Ends with Weakest Storm Levels of the Last 42 Years

LINK

LINK to the data

Statistics calculated from National Hurricane Center, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center best tracks as archived in the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship.
Available online here:

 

More CO2 means a warmer atmosphere.

A warmer atmosphere means more water vapor. Positive feedback. But decreasing positive feedback, so there's no runaway.

Your theory doesn't explain what caused more water vapor, so your theory fails.

 

Once you started ranting about hurricane numbers, you faceplanted hard. AGW theory never predicted more hurricanes. You just demonstrated how you don't know anything about the topic.

 

Laughably dishonest.

 

A warmer planet means more CO2. There is no scientific proof that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current warming period which started when human CO2 emissions were insignificant.

 

After I destroyed your model-based paper because I had the GALL to use real baseline data from official sources you get upset about it.

It is YOU who posted the article with this title:

Scientific American

Even Weak Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger as the Climate Warms

Excerpt:

Hurricanes are expected to grow stronger as the climate warms, with more of them spinning up into major storms. But it’s not just the biggest cyclones that are worsening. New research finds that weak tropical cyclones, including tropical storms and low-category hurricanes, are intensifying over time.

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, uses data collected by thousands of scientific instruments scattered across the world’s oceans. Tropical cyclones leave telltale signs in the water, speeding up ocean currents as they churn through. Scientists can estimate a storm’s wind speeds by measuring these currents.

======

The actual paper doesn't match with the articles claims it was actually a LIE because the paper was based on modeling scenarios as quoted from the very first sentence:

 

To pile it on here is the 1987 paper you seemed to have forgotten about which an early paper was claiming increasing CO2 would increase storminess in the ocean waters:

Nature

The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate

Kerry A. Emanuel

Abstract
Tropical cyclones rank with earthquakes as the major geophysical causes of loss of life and property1. It is therefore of practical as well as scientific interest to estimate the changes in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity that might result from short-term man-induced alterations of the climate2. In this spirit we use a simple Carnot cycle model to estimate the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones under the somewhat warmer conditions expected to result from increased atmospheric CO2 content. Estimates based on August mean conditions over the tropical oceans predicted by a general circulation model with twice the present CO2 content yield a 40–50% increase in the destructive potential of hurricanes.

red bolding mine

LINK

===

A clear statement that increasing CO2 would increase the storminess.

Thank you for helping me destroy your claims.

 

I know this isn't about science, but several of you already do a great job of that.

But I laughed out loud at this:

https://share.newsbreak.com/3g8b5uua

 

But a positive feedback that is microscopically small, at most, contrary to the assumptions of all climate models that predict strong warming as a result of increased CO2.

Wrong again. More solar activity --> higher temperature --> more water vapor. Not rocket science.

 

Real-World Observation: Increasing CO2 By 7,000 ppm Has A 0.3°C Temperature Differential
By Kenneth Richard on 30. March 2023

Share this...
Surface air CO2 concentrations vary by 100s to 1,000s of ppm within a span of hours to days or weeks across the natural world. The observational evidence suggests these variations are neither driving or even causing temperature changes.
According to recent field research (Mungai, 2021) conducted in Kenya, the observed CO2 concentrations in the atmospheric air above mofette springs ( averages 3,400-4,800 ppm. Interestingly, the temperatures associated with these high CO2 levels are “relatively low” or “cold” (~21.5 to 29.5°C) compared to ambient temperatures at other nearby sites with ~400 ppm CO2.
The study also shows that when CO2 increases from 5,253 ppm in wet season to 12,138 ppm in dry season over a mofette springs site, there is only a 0.3°C temperature differential (23.4°C vs. 23.1°C) associated with this >7,000 ppm CO2 change. The sensitivity of the surface air temperature to these extremely high CO2 variations would appear to be vanishingly small – or non-existent.


Image Source: Mungai, 2021

 

It never ceases to amaze me how many people seem to have forgotten the junior high science lesson on evaporation. The warmer the water and air the more water evoporates and the higher the humidity of the air and the more clouds in the sky blocking sun light or reradiating back towards the earth.

 

4.8
Article Rating

 

Water Vapor, Clouds Are The Real Direct Masters Controlling Our Climate
By P Gosselin on 31. March 2023

Share this...
Clouds reduce the energy at the surface, i.e. they currently cool the climate.
The DIY way to demystify „greenhouse gas” claims, Part 6

Are you feeling helpless when trying to assess the veracity of “climate doom is looming” claims we are permanently bombarded with? Don’t give up trying to understand the relevant basics, there is a rather simple way to get an idea about what this is all about. Even without a scientific background, most people have at least a good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how energy flows back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies.

By Fred F. Mueller

Preceding chapters see part 1 1), part 2 2), part 3 3), part 4 4), part 5 5)



Fig. 1. An interesting combination of cumulus clouds with white tops and dark underbellies arranged in a nearly linear formation from the background (center right) towards the left side of the picture.

The decisive faulty assumption of current climate science

When discussing climate topics related to the role of the so-called “greenhouse gases” and the distinction the IPCC makes with respect to “forcers” and “feedback amplifiers,” one inevitably stumbles across the question about what is the difference between both. In fact, the molecules from the “nobility” of the greenhouse gases – CO2, N2O and methane complemented by a few minor gases – can pick up very specific types of photons from the infrared spectrum emitted by earth’s surface and re-emit another photon with comparable wavelength some time thereafter. The absorbed photon energy will raise the internal energy of the molecule by initiating mechanical oscillations between its components. Scientist say that such a molecule has been “stimulated”. In this context, it has to be emphasized that under near-surface conditions, a re-emission will take place only for a minuscule fraction of the intercepted photons. Most of the photon energy absorbed by stimulated molecules will simply be converted to kinetic energy due to collisions with the surrounding air molecules, resulting in an insignificant temperature rise of the surrounding air. And only half of the few IR photons that happen to be re-emitted will be oriented downwards to the surface while the other half will follow an upward trajectory. This small fraction of a fraction is alleged to bring down the balance of our climate system. Such allegations simply ignore the fact that our climate system has proven to be resilient against all sorts of catastrophic events including monster volcanic emissions or the impact of the mighty “dino-killer” asteroid some 64 million years ago. But this is not the whole story. . . .

 

Because you say so? As usual, impressive reasoning. I'm sure it will take the world of science by storm.

Solar activity dropped, and temperature rose. And ocean temperatures kept rising just as fast, so we know heat wasn't coming out of the oceans.

To normal people, that was a coffin nail in the solar theory.

 

The paper pointed out that observation matched the models. Therefore, you made a claim that it was only about models. That's what we expect from you.

Someone is clearly getting upset here, but it's not me.

AGW theory didn't predicte more hurricanes, so repeatedly pointing out that hurricane numbers didn't increaqse would be ... repeatedly showing how good AGW theory was. Thanks for that. I'll let you know when I want any more points proven.

So, another paper that doesn't predict more hurricanes, but does predict stronger hurricanes. Once more, I thank you for showing how good AGW theory is.