Climate change and the global hydrological cycle

Science and Technology
1

One of our pals has shown a gross level of misunderstanding regarding how warming our global climate system will alter fundamental aspects of the world hydrological cycle in ways that are sure to be detrimental to prosperous farming and other modern pursuits our society depends on.

In truth it is a heck of a lot easier to grow all kinds of food in hot and steamy Alabama than cold and snowy Alberta. No shit Sherlock, warmth is more conducive to life than cold as long as there is water. Considering that precipitation comes from evaporation, and evaporation increases with temperature, then it stands to reason that global precipitation will increase with global warming. Hotter and wetter means a whole lot more agricultural productivity. How this situation looks like doomsday to you is truly baffling to me.
I believe his nonsense deserves to be called out with solid information that will help folks better grasp what's going on out there.
Climate Change Has Intensified the Global Water Cycle Published: April 26th, 2012 By Michael D. Lemonick http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-has-intensified-the-global-water-cycle Climate scientists have been saying for years that one of the many downsides of a warming planet is that both droughts and torrential rains are both likely to get worse. That’s what climate models predict, and that’s what observers have noted, most recently in the IPCC’s report on extreme weather], released last month. It makes physical sense, too. A warmer atmosphere can absorb more water vapor, and what goes up must come down — and thanks to prevailing winds, it won’t come down in the same place. The idea of changes to the so-called hydrologic cycle, in short, hangs together pretty well. According to a new paper just published in Science, however, the picture is flawed in one important and disturbing way. Based on measurements gathered around the world from 1950-2000, a team of researchers from Australia and the U.S. has concluded that the hydrologic cycle is indeed changing. Wet areas are getting wetter and dry areas are getting drier. But it’s happening about twice as fast as anyone thought, and that could mean big trouble for places like Australia, which has already been experiencing crushing drought in recent years. The reason for this disconnect between expectation and reality is that the easiest place to collect rainfall data is on land, where scientists and rain gauges are located. About 71 percent of the world is covered in ocean, however. “Most of the action, however, takes place over the sea," lead author Paul Durack, a postdoctoral fellow at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory … The climate models weren’t really wrong, Durack hastened to add. “They’re accurately capturing the spatial patterns in hydrologic changes, and they’ve got the basic physics right. They’re just providing very conservative estimates of how big the changes are, and now we’re starting to understand that." …
Climate change and the hydrological cycle BY YOCHANAN KUSHNIR|DECEMBER 19, 2008 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2008/12/19/climate-change-and-the-hydrological-cycle/ The prospects of significant and damaging changes in the hydrological cycle due to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations were raised in earlier IPCC reports and restated more strongly in the most recent, 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Now, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) issued its final Synthesis and Assessment Report on Abrupt Climate Change with an entire chapter dedicated to the subject of “Hydrological Variability and Change" addressing this potential climate hazard. Overall, the chapter confirms the IPCC AR4 conclusions giving an extensive survey of the history of U.S. droughts and the physical mechanism behind their occurrence. Here we highlight a few points regarding the major conclusions stated in the CCSP Report. 1. Two types of drought: … 2. How does global warming cause subtropical drying? To understand the mechanism of greenhouse warming related droughts we note that regionally, the hydrological cycle is a balance between two large terms: the atmospheric moisture influx into the region and the local difference between precipitation and evaporation (two smaller terms: storage of moisture in the upper ocean or in the ground and runoff of surface water in streams and rivers, complete the balance). Much of the subtropics lie over the world ocean areas where climate models indicate that when greenhouse gas concentrations increase and the surface warms “dry" regions, from which the atmosphere extracts moisture, will experience increased drying while “wet" regions, where atmospheric moisture inflow allows precipitation to exceed evaporation, will get wetter. This is a direct result of the warmer atmosphere being able to hold more moisture and thus existing patterns of atmospheric moisture transport intensify. Since currently the atmosphere exports moisture out of the subtropics and evaporation in these areas exceeds precipitation, this imbalance will increase in the future, drying these belts even further. Over land the situation is somewhat different. … 3. Future droughts and “natural" climate variability. ... 4. How certain are these projections? ...
Global Warming May Alter Critical Atmospheric Rivers How will climate change impact the source of much of California's water? By Andrea Thompson, Climate Central on February 6, 2015 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-may-alter-critical-atmospheric-rivers/ The hose has been turned back on full-force over Northern California: A stream of moisture is flowing over the drought-riddled state and dropping copious amounts of rain just days after the close of one of the driest Januaries on record. The influx of much-needed rain comes courtesy of a feature called an atmospheric river that is a key source of much of the state’s precipitation and water supply. A relatively recent meteorological discovery, these ribbons of water vapor in the sky are something scientists are trying to better understand. …
CCSP - SAP 3.4 Abrupt Climate Change Report Chapter 2 Hydrological Variability and Change Chapter Lead Author: Edward R. Cook,* Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY Contributing Authors: Patrick J. Bartlein,* Univ. OR, Eugene; Noah Diffenbaugh, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN; Richard Seager,* Columbia Univ., Palisades,NY; Bryan N. Shuman, Univ. MN, Minneapolis; Robert S. Webb,* NOAA, Boulder, CO; John W. Williams, Univ. CA Santa Barbara; Connie Woodhouse, Univ. AZ, Tucson. Key Findings Variations in water supply in general, and protracted droughts in particular, are arguably the greatest natural hazards facing the United States and the globe today and in the foreseeable future. In contrast to floods, which reflect both antecedent conditions and current meteorological events, and which are consequently more localized in time and space, droughts occur on subcontinental to continental scales, and can persist for decades and even centuries. On interannual to decadal time scales, droughts can develop faster than the time scale needed for human societies to adapt to the change. Thus, a severe drought lasting several years can be regarded as an abrupt change, although it may not reflect a permanent change of state of the climate system. … These megadroughts are significant, because they occurred in a climate system that was not being perturbed by major changes in its boundary conditions anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, atmospheric dust loadings, and land-cover changes). ...
2
Also, global warming is likely to increase precipitation, but not everywhere. Changing weather patterns could increase drought in some regions. Present crops each have their optimal temperature range. For example, development of winter wheat was good for cold climates, but not so good for warm climates. Fortunately we already have a lot of experience with tropical agriculture. Yields are increasing dramatically in tropical countries and American farmers will have no problem obtaining and planting varieties that thrive in climates just a few degrees warmer than present.
We shouldn't forget that our weather patterns are an interplay between the hot tropics and the Arctic and Antarctic - three fundamentally different regions of our globe. The equator, as though on a spit, roasting under the nonstop intensive radiant heat of the sun. As for the poles, they are opposites. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continent and the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. Whereas the Antarctic is the major driver of ocean currents, the Arctic is the major driver of Northern Hemisphere weather through it's interaction with the atmosphere and Jet Streams. Something that is undergoing a radical change. You see over the poles you have this mass of frigid air and around the belly of our planet we have hot air flowing towards the two poles. The jet streams are the zones in-between that form a boundary, as they race around our globe. Think about it, when I was a kid the Arctic was still pretty much solid ice. That glaring ice reflected the sun's ultraviolet rays right back into space, out and away from our global climate system.) This Ice Cap also isolated ocean currents away from the atmosphere, which had profound meteorological and ocean circulation consequences. Impacts that dictated the way our weather patterns operated. Consider increasing portions, major portions of Arctic Ice Cap has disappeared, removing that lid, so to speak. What does that mean? For starters the exposed ocean now acts as a solar collector capturing those ultraviolet rays and converting them to infrared radiation and heat that becomes part of our global climate system. ~ This in turn is causing water molecules to break free from the ocean and rise into the atmosphere. Turns out to be rather massive amounts of water vapor entering the Arctic Circle's atmosphere in a way that hasn't occurred in millions of years. While all this is going on the temperature gradient between the equator and the rapidly warming North Pole has lessened, causing the Jet Stream (That pusher and puller of storm systems.) to meander more and more, (Sort of like a river coming out of the foot hills and onto the plains.). This can't help but result in all sorts of upheaval to the weather patterns Earth has been experiencing between >1850 and 2010. Our changes to the system are new, and the major results are in the pipeline. Simple geophysics in action - it's just how it is no matter how much derision some fling at it. https://globaloffshorewind.wordpress.com http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=jetstream-guide
3

Okay, here’s the meat and potatoes. dusty, it’s not just my imagination :coolsmirk:

Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming Posted on 22 May 2013 by John Mason http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=jetstream-guide Barely a week goes by these days in the Northern Hemisphere without the jet stream being mentioned in the news, but rarely do such news items explain in detail what it is and why it is important. As a severe weather photographer this past 10+ years, an activity which requires successful DIY forecasting, I've had to develop an appreciation into what makes it tick. This post, then, is a start-from-scratch primer based on that knowledge plus some valuable assistance from academia into where the current research is heading. Because of its length and breadth of coverage, I've broken it up into bookmarked sections for easy reference: to come back here click on 'back to contents' in each instance. Contents: Earth's Troposphere - an introduction Weather systems aloft - the Polar Front and the jet stream Waves on the jet stream - upper ridges and troughs Positive vorticity - a driver of severe weather - and the jet stream Wind-shear - a driver of severe weather - and the jet stream Jetstreak development along the jet stream - a driver of severe weather Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns: the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations Climate change and the future: how will the jet steam and pressure-patterns respond? Conclusion
It's worth learning about.
Arctic Amplification w/ Jennifer Francis, June 2013 Published on Jan 9, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxMNGTMYMfM Great overview on the leading thinking behind why the Earth's weather system is changing rapidly before our eyes. What happens in the Arctic system happens to the rest of the globe. It's all one large system. As the temperature gradients continue to weaken between the high and mid latitudes, the jet stream is stalling and become more relaxed.
Recent Changes in Blocking Characteristics Assessed Using Self-Organizing Maps Speaker: Jennifer Ann Francis | Published on Dec 19, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11G2XyGm-DU Blocking anticyclones are known to be associated with persistent weather patterns that often lead to extreme weather events. An outstanding question, however, is whether the frequency and/or intensity of these dynamical features are changing in response to human-caused climate change, and in particular, to a disproportionately warming Arctic. In this presentation we describe a study using a pattern-recognition/clustering tool called Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs) to investigate the temporal behavior of blocks over recent decades, and attribute any changes to either frequency shifts in characteristic atmospheric patterns or to cluster-mean changes in a blocking characteristic for a given pattern. In this application, we use single contours of 500-hPa heights from reanalyses to identify characteristic ridge/trough patterns in the upper-level flow in the northern hemisphere.
4

And the beat goes on.

July 2023

‘Catastrophic’ flooding in Vermont prompts state of emergency

5

I tried having reasonable discussion with a local person, who doesn’t leave the house much for medical reasons. His facebook page is a long list of anti-science and bad politics. He posted a list of record temps in cities across America, noting that many of them are 100 years old. He said this data “doesn’t fit the narrative”. I tried to figure out which narrative he meant, and pointed out the difference between weather and climate, but he stuck to his guns. He even doubled down by saying he had done a debate in high school where he made the point that “they” said there would be global cooling. I linked to one of the millions of pages that show where that statement was made and how it was wrong then and wrong now. He took that rather personally.

Floods, fires, death by heat is not going to convince many of the people. Even after it has happened, after all the local temperature records are broken, hindsight will be just as fuzzy as the predictions. The clarity that you and I have will be just as rare as it is now.

6

What is the world trying to tell us

1 Like
7

Record heat waves across the earth today. Only thing that will save us is an economic collapse

1 Like
8

So you don’t know much about climate science either?

Take a closer look at the message in that picture. :wink:

9

There are accepted claims that the Earth is greening as a result of the raised OCO.
If the deserts regreen then at least something positive could be said about the change.
I’m pretty sure there will be some positive factors in climate change.
For instance, a tree grows in Greenland.
Wouldn’t that be something?

What troubles me is the drought that we are seeing. I had thought that there would be more water everywhere. Then I think about evaporation. Typically warm water evaporates into cooler air, thus heating the air as it moistens. To get the water to warm then what about pumping it into the sky from solar barges in the ocean? Done cleverly this might help steer weather patterns. Seems far more innocent than dumping chemicals into the air.

Heading farther north you can see drought again, as warm moist air is condensing (drying out) as it hits ice and permafrost, melting the stuff down like an ice cube in a cold drink. When we run out of ice things are really going to get wild. Until then isn’t it drying our the air? Just like hot air over a cool ocean?

The effect of raised OCO in the atmosphere is a lot of hot air.

10

It’s a complicated story, and we need to do our own homework, here’s a start:

Atmospheric Moisture Increase

Climate science at a glance

  • For each 1.8°F (1°C) of warming, saturated air contains 7 percent more water vapor on average.[1]
  • The increase in atmospheric moisture content increases the risk of extreme precipitation events.
  • Just as a bigger bucket can hold and dump more water, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor and therefore dump more water when it rains.
  • Atmospheric moisture has increased since 1976 and the increase is due primarily to human-caused climate change.[2][3]

Background information

Warmer air can hold more water

Warmer air holds more water because the water vapor molecules it contains are moving at a higher average speed than those in colder air making them less likely to condense back to liquid. According to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, for each 1.8°F (1°C) of warming, saturated air contains 7 percent more water vapor, which may rain out if conditions are right.[1]

ASK NASA CLIMATE | February 8, 2022, 07:55 PST

Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth’s Greenhouse Effect

By Alan Buis,
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Increases in atmospheric water vapor also amplify the global water cycle. They contribute to making wet regions wetter and dry regions drier. The more water vapor that air contains, the more energy it holds. This energy fuels intense storms, particularly over land. This results in more extreme weather events.

But more evaporation from the land also dries soils out. When water from intense storms falls on hard, dry ground, it runs off into rivers and streams instead of dampening soils. This increases the risk of drought.

In short, when atmospheric water vapor meets increased levels of other greenhouse gases, its impacts on Earth’s climate are substantial. …

One for the road,

11

Unfortunately i am pretty sure i am correct thank you

12

No need for any deeper understanding, you tell me?

You don’t seem to appreciate the size of our climate system. Evaporation units can disrupt localized areas but you aren’t going to overcome Jet Stream’s steering power over weather systems. And definitely not in a controlled fashion the way it works in cartoons.

If deserts are going to regreen - you make it sound like they are simple systems, add CO2 and puff more plant growth. Okay, but how much more? What kinds of plants will be winners losers, (important from a farmer, eaters perspective).

Like I said, it gets complicated, and without making the effort to understand the complications within easy sounding solutions, you’ll never know . . .

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2#:~:text=As%20any%20aspiring%20green%20thumb,places%20like%20the%20American%20West.

. . . Although plants need carbon dioxide to grow, their success in very high-carbon environments is not guaranteed. Not all plants like extra carbon equally. And for those carbon aficionados in the plant kingdom, CO2 is not the only factor that controls growth. As any aspiring green thumb knows, plants need the right balance of water and soil nutrients to translate extra carbon dioxide into growth.

This is a problem, given the way our climate is trending. Climate change, driven by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, deepens droughts in places like the American West. That reduces the water supply for plants there while simultaneously increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In other places, plants will have to cope with more frequent disasters like flooding and heat stress, exposure to saltwater from rising seas, and an increase in pests that enjoy warmer winters.

And though planting millions of additional trees is one popular idea often floated for pulling some CO2 out of the atmosphere, it is not clear that the world would have enough nutrients in the soil to allow for such growth. …

Here’s the article for you, very hopeful, but it does point out some of the details and especially the fact that way more research on crops is needed. Although the biggest problem with CO2 isn’t what it does for plants, it’s what it does for atmospheric insulation. Hundred degree temps are not good for crops, no matter how wonderful CO2’s turns out to be for plant growth.

. . . But Rosenzweig said that more field experiments are needed. “The uncertainty of carbon dioxide effects are greater in arid regions because experiments have been carried out mostly in temperate regions of the northern hemisphere,” she said. “We need field observations in these drier regions in order to validate and further improve our models.”

There is also a need for research that explores the impact of elevated carbon dioxide levels on crop nutrition, which wasn’t investigated in this study. “Crops also need nitrogen to grow, for example, and in many parts of Africa there’s not enough fertilizer,” Deryng said. “Imbalances between nitrogen and carbon in the crop tissues could lead to fewer nutrients like iron, zinc, along with a reduction in the protein content.”

The researchers say their findings cast a light on agriculture globally and highlight the importance of studying arid and semi-arid cropping systems. “For farmers, water is essential,” Deryng said. “Building on this research will help them and other stakeholders prepare for production in a hotter, drier planet. …

13

I think what i said is a given

14

I think there is more to think, but probably a lot of leaders see it this way. Remember the end of Atlas Shrugged, the rich watching the collapse begin, waiting to pick up the pieces and build their dream. But, their dream is the nightmare. It won’t save anyone. Do I need to quote the guy from the Vietnam War?

15

So it seems, to you at least.

16

I did follow the link to climate signals dot org. Thank you. They definitely claim that atmospheric moisture is on the rise, but that drought is on the rise, too.

Maybe just give up and let the reptiles have it? Over-population is easily established. We’ve taken all the fish out of the oceans. If we want each human to have a ‘decent’ living standard, which I suppose means high-tech; hot running water, transportation; say it comes to one megawatt-hour per year. Can’t we establish a proper target population around such a figure? Why is it with all the extended discussion that population remains an isolated topic from climate change and its solutions? A decline in populations answers many more issues. If last century’s human lived at 0.1 megawatt-hours per year, and the century before that it was a tenth again, then what of the next century? Our bots are on the way, right? They’ll be out squashing bugs on the asparagus and trimming the lawn. At another order of magnitude we’ll be living high on the hog once again…
I see the standing figure is 419.04 ppm OCO. Amazing that something so small could mean something so big. To he honest with you I don’t like the heat much, but the plants love it. Just dug my garlic up and its the best ever. Finally I’m getting some decent sized cloves. I suppose it is partly my ammendments to the soil, but perhaps I should attribute some of it to 419.04. Cheers to 420! It will be a pretty big event, I suppose.

17

Right but keep straight we are talking two different things here,
One has to do with straight physics - warmer air masses will have a higher moisture holding capacity than cooler air.
The other is circulation patterns:

Heck in this society now-days, we can’t even establish that honesty matters and that deliberately lying about these facts is a traitorous act against humanity.

Because it’s the second most obvious one, but it would cut into profits of the masters of the universe.
The most obvious solution is to learn to love living with less. But, of course, we dispensed with that one when the Republican elected the lying cheat Reagan.

You mean as in the remainder of this century - collapse.

Of course, collapse is totally unacceptable, so we ignore that self-evident promise, and carry on by spitting hair and deliberate ignoring #1 and #2.

Yeah, ain’t dat the mantra of the under-educated thoughtless gluttonous crowd: “HOW COULD WE HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING HAPPENING?” By using our brains rather then letting our petty desires, vanity and egos lead us around like a bunch brainless hard ons.

It’s also a difficult thing for people to imagine what CO2 is about. It isn’t some melodramatic hero or villain. Sure to a point more CO2 will provide more of that one nutrient, but plants also need a balance of nutrients along with a reasonable temperature
and if you have a garden you ought to have noticed that 100% is really tough on it.

Around here it sure is and if I didn’t have the luxury of having a bunch more water to dump onto it, things would be looking pretty dismal.

With a new water dock that’s open around two miles away, yippee happy days for this lucky camper - sure beats 50miles or the water dock a few miles away that keeps running dry cause it’s tied to the water table, which fluctuates like crazy, now that the traditional weather patterns have been shot to hades.

But I also appreciate the water isn’t going to last, and the wonderful modest life style we are living and enjoying around here, her days are numbers.

Don’t suppose you spend much time thinking of resources it takes, and pollutants we produce, to produce and maintain all these wonderful bots to do the jobs we humans have become too lazy to do.

18

Yes. I was already to their site based on the yt video posted earlier.
It’s interesting; the hectopascal parameter rather than altitude.
Also, I don’t mean to bait you at all on this. I can see you are charged on this.
I actually don’t use fossil fuels on my land and use hand tools instead.
It’s a whole different world. It’s healthy, too, at least when my back is up to it.
I consume very little and try to practice self sufficiency.
But citizen, still skepticism has to be brought especially as politicians like Al Gore show up making movies with his silhouette in front of a rotary storm cloud and falsifiable graphs.
Nader would have gotten us on track too.
As to who has to bear responsibility for the prolonged denial of climate change…
once again we see Godzilla in self-destruct mode merely concerned with the increase in destruction of others over itself. Democracy is dying with its hands tied behind its back by capitalism.
Capitalism is clearly a loser in this analysis.
The idea of lessening production and raising quality of goods goes in direct contradiction to the profit motive. Profit as a concept is universal, as are free markets. The idea that capitalism somehow owns these things is a fraud. It simply declared them as its ultimate principles; it’s OK to be a greedy pig. The american dream is to get rich and we preach this as our fundamental goal. Obviously it rings hollow. The total loss of integrity here is making a circus of the world. OK, no, it is not that funny. It is gut wrenching in fact. Worst of all it even effects personal relationships; mine, anyways. I can’t stomach to hang out with leftist people who I thought were antiwar but who turn out to be comfortably complicit following deep state commandments all the way down from Russiagate and onward. They simply cannot reverse why? There may be some key that we are still missing that they have based on sociological work or some such. Some sort of world view, or tribal clique queue, no doubt based in mimicry, which occurs beneath our conscious radar. If repetition is enough; well, they’ve got all MSM viewers snared, but actually this is the biggest joke of our time as their viewership declines in the pool of deep lies. This is how badly constructed the lies are these days. I think they used to do a more clever job of it.

Isn’t it true that at some level of OCO the greenhouse effect slows down again? In effect, having trapped those wavelengths of light and converted them to heat there is no more solar radiation to absorb. I really feel quite uplifted by this as I take the molecular stage, and it makes me wonder if atmospherics will ultimately take good care of us. Surely thermal mass has some laggardly skin in the game, so maybe after it all catches up we’ll have partly cloudy skies with evening showers followed by cooling nights thanks to that clear sky that just dropped its rain, but I do see the weather pattern lockup just as has been described by climate scientists. It’s so long, too. Four weeks; five weeks, maybe? Why a more energetic system would stabilize like this is beyond me. Why a wetter world will cause more drought is roughly the same conflicted tale. The complexity of moisture and its own greenhouse effect with negative feedback based on albedo is quite the relevant factor, yeah? Every time the clouds lift a little higher and raise their potential energy due to gravity, what, we slow down the planet? Bring it on!
Thanks ccv4. I am learning here but hopefully helping you have some fun too.

You seem pretty advanced. I’ve got an old theory about the circulation cells changing pattern based on this increase in atmosphere. Basically there should be a harmonic model of those cells; in effect there is a unitary loop from the poles to the equator; a double cell which is nearly invisible under the triple cell model, and likely so on and so forth down into little swirls as they occur over mountains and so forth.
This would be a harmonic model, I think, sort of Fourierish. If things are getting stopped up maybe we are about to break into a four cell visible pattern? More vertical action means more Coriolis force, and with more OCO up there with the clouds the reflectance parameter does somewhat get diminished, or at least offset by this persistent lift.

Please note I am not a climate scientist and until last week I mistakenly thought that there were just two cells per hemisphere. I’m sure it’s all a bit naive.

19

I’m in awe, what you’ve done is a very difficult thing to pull off these days.
I wish you the best!

And that’s garbage because, he’s a politician and not a scientist.
His errors were of the benign type, and could go through everyone, because he was never that far off, there were issues of nuance - such saying if the poles melt sea level rise will go up X, nuance being it ain’t going to be happening in the next few decades.

Gore bashing made an excellent diversionary tactic, to avoid seriously looking at the scientific facts.

Yeah, by becoming a demagogue and winning the election for the Republicans, rather than work together with Gore and become a real power-broker to drive how his causes, instead he became a pathetic cipher in the dust bin of history.
Instead, we got Cheney/Bush’s maga right wing corporate double-dealing, a blind eye to national security experts (game of politics l expediency there) and the War for Profits, Shock’n Awe - and the tanking of the global consensus that had been ever so slowly been getting cobbled together.

That’s what your brand of idealism achieved for the world.

You bet, just don’t forget the communistic system is, in it’s own way, every bit as capitalistic as we are.

Or as they say in Hungary, the difference between the Russian system and the Capitalistic system, is that one exploits their fellow man, and the other is exactly the other way around.

Yeah, sounds about right.

Squeeze the most profit out of the least investment, is another way of putting it.

Tell it to the Venusians.

What you think the atmosphere is there for our needs?

I never heard a climate science say anything about "weather patterns getting “lockup” "
Say things like that and serious people would expect you to produce a citation or two to explain just what the heck you are trying to explain.

You bet, just the thing for my latent masochistic tendencies.

Well, I’m no climate scientist either, though I’ve been learning about it since the early 1970s, (I won’t say study, because that’s what a scientist does - I simply study their real “studies.”) so yes I do know a thing or two - but the best thing I know, is how to find serous studies to learn from.

Also I try to keep in mind, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - more knowledge tends to have sobering effect on the mind.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00287-x

Weak Hadley cell intensity changes due to compensating effects of tropical and extratropical radiative forcing

What does CO2 have to do with a cloud’s reflectance parameter?

I do appreciate neither of us are scientists and that we’re simply kicking the can around…
Have a good day.

20

I stand corrected. I must have been watching something bogus from the internet to develop that belief.
Google says: " CO2 molecules don’t really interact with sunlight’s wavelengths . Only after the Earth absorbs sunlight and reemits the energy as infrared waves can the CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb the energy."

I appreciate the education and am following many links and their links as well. In one comment I read: “From what I understand Venus’s atmosphere is over 95% CO2 and it’s surface temperatures are almost 500 degrees celcius.”
That’s some pretty good empirical evidence. Of course the depth of the atmosphere must matter. Google gives “The Earth’s atmosphere is an extremely thin sheet of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the edge of space. The Earth is a sphere with a roughly 8000 mile diameter; the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles.” and so videos showing a blanketing effect going out the diameter of the earth again are misrepresenting things. Reading more about Venus I find out that its atmosphere is supercritical fluid; meaning its a different animal.

I think rather than leaning on the historical record there should be some pretty good basic experimental evidence. Thermodynamics is treacherous business.

1 Like