They say that our most important greenhouse gas is water vapour
Or at least they do now. Now that some sort of skepticism has broken through the alarmist wall-of-sound.
I suggesst however that its water in its liquid form that is our greatest greenhouse ‘gas’.
Well of course water isn’t a gas.
But why, heretofore, has the talk mostly only been about greenhouse gasses?
I think the idea of earths greenhouse effect has been historically fleshed out with reference to the other planets in the solar system. And our planet is the only planet wherein water exists in liquid form on the surface.
So the talk is all ‘greenhouse gasses’ this and ‘greenhouse gasses’ that.
But the tendency to be one-eye-blind towards water in liquid-form is probably not very useful.
ITS THE OCEANS STUPID.
Of course I recognise this is a vast oversimplification.
But the plan behind all of these small pieces is to just shift peoples perspective enough for them to recognise the mono-mania and presumption of the alarmist climate-science-workers and their various bully-boy supporters.
Is 20m above sea level really the right standard? Is the average temperature of the air the first 5,000 feet over the land-(only) REALLY the right standard from which to base our calculations on?
I have a concept of my own called “delta-joules”. This is a hard thing to talk about because you are really only describing about an hypothetical difference in joules given a hypothetical change in conditions independent from anything else.
The problem with basing everything on average temperature of the lower troposphere is that a proportion of any extra joules hanging round might not make it through the night.
Out of those that do many won’t make it through the winter.
Of the joules left over many of them won’t make it through the next weaker-then-usual 11 year solar cycle. And even surviving underwater that long isn’t good enough for global warming.
The North-Brazil current pushes up into the Gulf-Stream and gets as far as the South Labrador Sea.
There it starts going-down. And it winds up in a complementary current deep in the ocean. And this current travels a long way back in the other direction.
In fact it travels all the way to the Northern Coast of Antarctica and then splits up and joins one of two currents in the Great Ocean Conveyer Belt.
1. Does the volume and velocity change at all the down-welling areas on the planet? (well yes I’m pretty sure it does.)
2. Does the temperature of the down-welling water change (I suspect it does but do not know for sure and have no data)
3. And what are the implications for the transfer of energy into the depths of the ocean of an increase/decrease of temperature/volume/velocity?
I have no figures for you but some proportion of extra energy that winds up down there from some sort of abnormal change (lets say an abnormally strong solar cycle) might well stay on past the next “down” solar-cycle.
And you would think it is this ability for extra energy to be held over, past a number of different solar cycles, past any up and down cycle of momentum of the Gulf stream…..
…One would think that THIS is what you would need for global warming. And it is what is happening in the deeper oceans and perhaps the lower end of the photic-zone that would give you the best indication of how trends were working for us.
A large lake may be warmer then the surrounding land in winter and cooler then the surrounding land in summer.
Oceans, because of the various currents in them, might be harder to gage in terms of a simple trend in temperatures.
Nonetheless if one was a science-worker trying to see what all this panic and calls for other peoples cash is all about one would try and find oceanic temperature averages which related well to prior solar radiation and to subsequent higher air temperatures……. higher then what the immediate solar radiation would suggest.
But one isn’t likely to follow this up if one is getting all anally-retentive about industrial-CO2.