ican711nm wrote:ican wrote:The arctic ice will receive less precipitation in the form of snow as a result.
parados wrote:Why do you think it will receive less precipitation?
I did not claim "less precipation", I claimed that in the arctic "less precipitation in the form of
snow" would result from global warming. That would also be true in the antarctic.
What kind of precipitation do you think can actually occur in air that is -20c? I have lived for over 40 years in the northern climes and I have never seen air that is -5c deliver anything but snow or some other frozen precipitation. If you have evidence of rain falling in those temperatures please provide us with it. I would love to see it. I think sleet is only formed when during a temperature inversion the upper air is warmer than 32F or 0c. On looking at the Arctic average temps it appears there are a couple of months when the surface air temp is around -5c to +5c. So it might be possible that the precipitation could be rain.
Quote:
ican wrote:OK! So now all we have to focus our attention on, is the source of that infrared radiation and the cause of its variable intensity over past millennia as well as past centuries and decades. Some say the most immediate source is the CO2 in the atmosphere. But much of that CO2 in the atmosphere is mixed with H2O. Consequently, its ability to radiate infrared light from the infrared radiation it receives from earth is somewhat reduced. So as the global temperature rises, more H2O would evaporate into the atmosphere and reduce further the atmospheric CO2's ability to radiate infrared. That would then lead to global cooling.
parados wrote:What? How does H20 affect the absorbtion and radiation rate of CO2? The only thing H20 could do is be so prevalent that it absorbs all the IR so that there is none left for the CO2 to absorb. Of course the H20 would radiate it's own IR at a reduced rate from what it received which again would be radiated in all directions including back toward the earth. ANY green house gas that prevents radiation of the earth's IR to space would lead to warming not cooling.
If it be true that the CO2 ppm in earth's atmosphere affects the temperature of the earth, and that the temperature of the earth has been warming because of increased CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, then it would also be true that if the amount of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere were decreased, the temperature of the earth would decrease. It is also true that if the CO2 in the atmosphere received less IR (i.e., Infrared Radiation), the earth would cool.
You are basing your argument on CO2 being the only green house gas. It isn't. Let's see if we can make this simple and easy to understand.
The sun radiates light in all wavelengths. Visible light, IR, ultraviolet and others. Some of the wavelengths are stopped by the atmosphere and some are let through. Visible light is let through. It is absorbed or reflected by objects it hits. White objects reflect much of visible light. Black objects absorb much of it. What happens when the objects absorb light is they heat up. Think about a blacktop driveway on a sunny day or a black car vs a white car. There is a reason almost all the rental cars in AZ are white. When the object heats up the molecules vibrate and give off IR. It is this transfer of energy from visible light (and other wavelengths) to infrared that we are talking about.
In order for the earth to lose this heat created from the visible light it must make it to space. To greatly oversimplify, what a CO2 atom does is break apart the IR that hits it and sends it in all directions. For even more simplicity we will say 1/2 goes toward space and 1/2 goes back to earth. The more CO2 atoms you line vertically the less energy that finally gets to space. So lets assume the energy hits 3 CO2 atoms before getting to space. This would mean that 1/8 of the energy from the surface would make it to space on the first time through. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8. Of course the energy going back down would also split and go up and down so more than 1/8 would make it to space but it would not be equal to the 1/2 that reached with only 1 atom. And more than 1/2 would make it back to the surface. Now if we assume that water vapor acts exactly like CO2 in that 1/2 is radiated to space and 1/2 to earth then 3 H20 atoms lined up vertically would have the same effect as 3 CO2 atoms.
It quickly becomes obvious that it doesn't matter if the CO2 or the H20 atoms are what the IR hits, the action is the same. If you add more H20 or more CO2 to the line of atoms you reduce down the amount of energy that eventually makes it to space. Of course the atoms are not lined up. But if we do the same thing in a 3 dimensional grid and randomly place CO2 atoms and H20 atoms in it we see that the more atoms of either we place in the grid the less energy will make it through. So adding more H20 to the atmosphere doesn't mean that the earth's surface radiates more energy to space, it means it radiates less. And adding more H20 doesn't make the CO2 atoms less able to block energy, it only means they have less energy to block because other atoms are blocking it before it gets to the CO2.
When you start figuring that IR is radiated in all directions by the atoms it quickly becomes obvious that what happens is more energy becomes trapped in the atmosphere and more is radiated back to the surface the more greenhouse gases you put into the atmosphere.
Quote:
The absorbtion of CO2 in the H2O in the atmosphere reduces that CO2's ability to re-radiate the IR it receives. Also the H2O in the atmosphere reduces the IR received by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Consequently the more H2O in the atmosphere the less radiation of IR back to earth by the CO2.
CO2 atoms don't change. I know of no study that says CO2 dissolved in water acts any different from CO2 in air in response to IR. The CO2 in water would get less IR based on the surrounding H20 atoms but it would still act the same as far as I know. I would love to see any studies you might know of that would say it acts differently.
Quote:
When the earth's temperature is increased, more H2O evaporates into the atmosphere, thereby reducing the re-radiation of IR by the CO2 in the atmosphere. When that H2O in the atmosphere precipitates, it not only reduces the H2O in the atmosphere; it reduces the CO2 that would otherwise remain in the atmosphere.
Interesting idea but I don't think it is very realistic when it comes to reducing green house gases. If this was true then we wouldn't have the increases in CO2 we have seen over the last 50 years and there would be a decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere after a heavy rainstorm. I know of no science that says this.
Quote:
Furthermore we also know that the H2O remaining in the atmosphere re-radiates much of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere.
Only if it is in the atmosphere as thick cloud cover and reflects visible light
Quote:
All that being the case, the amount of H2O in atmosphere has a far greater effect on the earth's temperature than does the CO2 in the atmosphere. We also know that clouds of H2O reduce the amount of radiation and re-radiation of IR to the earth than does a cloudless atmosphere. So it would not be a good idea to try and reduce the amount of H2O in the atmosphere.
Clouds reflect visible light before it ever gets to the earth. Since visible light never reaches the ground it can't warm the ground and be radiated back as IR. There have been papers written on this saying more clouds could act as an iris effect cutting off light and keeping the earth from heating too much. (Lindzen) The problem is that water vapor exists in the air at all times even when their aren't clouds. If we had clouds every day, the earth would cool but it would mean plants wouldn't get the direct sunlight many of them need. That would be a whole other problem.
Well, let's discuss that later.
What do you think?
