A little test, & a thought for all those global warmists out there, not so brainwashed they can’t still think for themselves.

Try wandering outside about 10.00PM on a clear night after one of those 34 C days. Do wear your jacket; these dry nights after westerlies from the desert have heated the day are bitterly cold, especially for late spring.

Now wonder why it’s so cold. After all we have all that global warming CO2 up there theoretically re-radiating all that heat back down to us. Pity it doesn’t work.

Now wander out there about the same time, same place, after another 34 C day, when the air is moist, there are a few clouds in the sky, & a little dew is falling. Don’t bother with your jacket, in fact you won’t need a shirt, the night is warm & welcoming.

All that heat that wasn’t being down radiated by CO2 is coming from the water vapor, effectively warming the air around us, re-radiating long wave length radiation that CO2 didn’t.

Both Japanese & Russian researchers have results suggesting that increasing CO2 displaces water vapor from the air, thus cooling the planet. Of course our warmists won’t believe that, unless Albanese tells them to. So come on, try to challenge some facts. Tell us why CO2 doesn’t warm those cold nights

Hasbeen found it! it was under my bed nice and warm there
We differ you and I always, but somehow I can not change the fact I like you
No true!
Way back when was it 1984? the flying peanut stopped Howard becoming PM, I ran in to three old fellas
Two here in a shop long gone screaming [such folk always scream] that Joe would be PM
The other shop at woodburn on our north coast [I was fishing every weekend near there]holding up a Joe supliment from a newspaper screaming only he could save us
Some times, like this thread I think of you as one like them
But still like a coffee with you one day stay well mate

The nature of day night cycles depends on where you live and what the local and regional weather patterns are doing at any time.

Inland, there is the continental effect: hot during the day, but quite cold overnight; on the coast with the same hot day temperature, it won't get as cold overnight because of the moderating effect of the ocean. Altitude plays a role; the overnight temperature range from the west coast of Tasmania up into the nearby mountains will be more extreme over just a few kilometres compared with the same distance inland on a flat plain. On the other hand, after a few days in the inland over 40 degrees, it stays hot overnight. And, as you note, humidity makes a difference too; humidity will vary depending again of where you live and the local weather pattern at the time.

More C02 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect, retaining more heat (there is plenty of information on the details of this, wavelengths reflected etc etc). That extra heat (=energy) affects the atmospheric circulation. But it doesn't override the temperature gradient from the poles to the equator (though it may moderate it); there is still the effect of large land mass in the northern hemisphere v. large water mass in the southern; and, for Australia, the existing cycles of the Indian Ocean Dipole and ENSO (el nino). We don't know how these will vary in the future. Basically, even with more heat energy in the atmosphere, day-night, summer-winter, pole-equator, land-ocean differences will always be there (though they will vary in intensity) as will the local topography.

But, as to where all the heat has gone - well, some of it into the oceans. One of my brothers has had a long career as a petroleum geologist; he has no doubt about global warming: "Just wait until the oceans release all the heat they've absorbed!"

A couple of points: CO2 and water vapour absorb/reflect different wave-lengths; CO2 doesn't 'displace' water vapour in the air; the atmosphere is not a fixed volume like a bucket, there's room for both!

Hasbeen,
>Both Japanese & Russian researchers have results suggesting that increasing CO2
>displaces water vapor from the air, thus cooling the planet.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That claim is as extraordinary as you can get, yet I've seen no proof at all. Indeed I've never seen any evidence for it (apart from your claiming it here, and I hope you understand why I regard that as such low quality as to be of absolutely no value whatsoever). Though you've claimed researchers have reached those results, you've never posted any links to their papers. And the failure of the rightwing bloggers, the Daily Mail and the Murdoch Press to pick up on it strongly suggests that the error is in your interpretation rather than what any scientists have actually claimed.

The universally accepted view is that the warming from CO2 increases the amount of water vapour in the air, because (as every meteorologist in the world knows) warmer air can hold more of it. And that creates feedback which warms the air even further.
If virtually all of the world's scientists were wrong, and CO2 did somehow displace water vapour, why aren't we experiencing global cooling?
And how exactly could CO2 displace water vapour?

CO2 does slightly reduce the amount of water vapour entering the air by transpiration, and I think the most likely explanation is the results of that are being misinterpreted.

>Of course our warmists won’t believe that, unless Albanese tells them to.
The views of politicians do not determine the facts. Just because you're such an imbecile that you believe what politicians tell you doesn't mean everyone else is!

>So come on, try to challenge some facts. Tell us why CO2 doesn’t warm those cold nights
IT DOES!
They'd be even colder without it.

Doesn't anybody but myself get bored with this subject?
Mother Nature will sooner or later reduce the human population to something under the plague proportions it is now.

It's encouraging that she has a balanced view on cause and effect.

Dan.

Champion of getting things wrong, Paul Eherlich, has found the energy to once again tell us that it's all over because of what happened in 1200BC when, apparently, Egypt, Assyria and Cannan "were burnt to the ground all at once".

If you can be bothered reading this drivel, it is available on news.com.au.

"Doesn't anybody but myself get bored with this subject?"

Me too, Dan. However, there is much amusement to be had with the flat earthers and witch burners still thinking that they have power over nature - that puny little them can change the climate by getting grants from taxpayers. The grants aren't amusing, of course.

Any subject can be posted however it is not a law that you must contribute to it
In fact some would be pleased if you did not

Anyone wondering why the Australian continent is so dry current might have a look at sea surface temperatures around the continent.

https://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta

The temperatures in rain forming areas are anomalously cool. This means less cloud, less rain, and warmer than average temperatures on the Australian continent. This is part of the normal weather cycle. There should be research efforts to try and mitigate this. Ocean fertilisation has the potential to allow more heat to be trapped in the ocean surface. It may have potential to mitigate the rainfall depressing effect from an extreme IOD event as we have currently.

Fester yes indeed some know about it and some too understand the effect el nino and la nina have
The question even if some find it unpleasant, is what if any effect has climate change on all the above

nice quote from the late Clive James

'When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.'

Hi Belly

How constructive has such discussion ever been on OLO? Natural rainfall variability in Australia is uncontested, but what can be done about it? I am interested in ocean fertilisation as a possible mitigating measure, although I hope I am not as obsessive as some about thorium reactors. I read recently an article on anthropogenic iron deposition in the world's oceans.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-great-iron-fertilization-underway.html

It may be that the intensity of the positive IOD is influenced by this iron deposition.

Cheers

Thanks Fester remember to take the s off to get your link to work will go to it now

I've been reading these articles and I don't know what to make of it can anyone help me please

The rise of solar power is jeopardising the WA energy grid, and it's a lesson for all of Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-01/rise-of-rooftop-solar-power-jeopardising-wa-energy-grid/11731452

I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the lesson?

"Another was giving the system operator greater control over people's solar panels, which he said would make it easier to balance supply and demand and prevent the risk of solar overloading the grid.

This could allow AEMO to 'spill' surplus solar power, rather than have to accommodate it in a way that put the grid under stress."

"One of the advantages we have in Western Australia is because we haven't followed down the sale pathway of privatisation, we can respond very quickly," Mr Johnston said.

I honestly don't know where to begin with some of the garbage going on today.
Look at this stuff.
You don't brag about not privatising when you face a loss of $657 million which the general public have to foot the bill for, because of someone else's poor planning.

Power retailer Synergy posts financial loss of $656 million as rooftop solar panels impact profit
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/wa-power-retailer-synergy-posts-massive-financial-loss/11550420

"What's of more concern, though, is that every Western Australian family will ultimately pay for this loss."

So after promoting solar now they want to spill that solar generated power to safeguard the government owned coal-generated power, which they're happily taking a loss on (to save consumers money ironically), after their government owned company spent all this money on solar as well themselves to meet global renewable energy targets.

"Mr Waters highlighted Synergy's commitment to renewable energy through the Warradarge Wind Farm and the expansion of the Greenough River Solar Farm."

"Both of these projects will help us in achieving our large-scale renewable energy target obligations, maintain control of system security and reliability and create employment opportunities for the Mid West region of the state during the construction phases," he said.

Seriously what the bloody hell is going on here?
What is the lesson?

- I'm seriously confused here -

Hi AC,

It's what happens when the decision makers are driven by ideology and have no practical comprehension. There should be a ban on new solar without at least 10kwh of battery storage. It would also be highly desirable to have control systems that can divert excess power to the hot water system or to run appliances.

Cheers

John Howard, on introducing subsys for solar power first saw five thousand dollars the cost to those who got it
They too [then out of my ability to pay] got 60 cents feedback, making cash out of the deal
At that time we and he, did not fully understand the need for batteries
Time passed and those panels got better and cheaper [be warned however some now on sale are bad, very bad be warned
Batteries, we understand them better, the informed of us knew the ability to store that power, for night time use, did not fully exist then
Or even with its best in the country storage SA still lacks that ability
There is the reason we saw the headlines AC talks of
Forget feedback profits, very few get that now, but too see the cheaper panels, many more want and get them
More than can currently be of any use after dark, only stored or newly generated power can give that
Unless we get that storage right? solar after dark, will remain our problem

diver dan,

Then stop talking about!

It's only you denialists who keep turning it into an argument.

Get yourself a hobby and keep your beak out of subjects you know nothing about and everyone will be much happier for it.

Pot, kettle, black.

This is probably not a great solution, because if it was someone else would've already thought of it, but why cant they use 'water' itself for power storage?

Lets say they have to spill extra load, why not just run pumps and refill the dam with that extra power they need to spill, then at night time open the gates and let that water create the energy back when its needed?

That way, the water is the battery.

Hasbeen,
Is that really all you have to say?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,
They do this already, and have done for decades in the eastern states. It's known as pumped storage.
There are several plans for more pumped storage in Australia, the biggest of which is known as Snowy 2.0
But battery technology is advancing so fast that the economic case for more pumped storage is unclear.

As for the articles you don't know what to make of, it's because the network operators have been asleep at the wheel. The rapid growth of solar power has taken them by surprise, and the infrastructure to take advantage of it isn't there yet. So the incompetents are seeking ways to avoid having to fix the problem.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Fester,
Why do you think we should artificially inflate the profits of the coal fired power industry by restricting its more efficient competitors?
In practice there'll be no need for a ban - the solar power generators will install batteries for economic reasons. So will their coal fired competitors in a desperate attempt to survive.

Hi Aidan,

I think solar/batteries for home power is great in remote locations, and I hope it becomes cheap enough to compete with coal fired power. AC raises a good point of using water as a battery. Water is a very good battery when you heat or cool it. Still more expensive than coal though.

The current warmth in Australia is due to anomalously cold surface temperatures in the surrounding ocean. How has global warming caused this cold water? If there was warmer water then Australia would be getting more cloud and rain which would make it cooler. Ocean fertilisation could trap more heat in the ocean surface, which would result in more rainfall.

Cheers

Fester,
Your information is out of date. Solar plus batteries is already cheap enough to compete with coal, though home scale batteries probably aren't the best solution except where electricity distribution infrastructure is inadequate or where an uninterruptible power supply is required.

Load balancing activities, such as heating or cooling water, are important in the future of electricity supply, but don't equate to batteries.

You ask how global warming can cause cold water - the answer is that it can disrupt can currents, resulting in some places getting colder despite the ocean getting warmer overall. But what makes you think that's the cause of the current warmth in Australia?

And is there any actual evidence that ocean fertilisation could trap more heat in the ocean surface and cause more rainfall?

Aidan if you want to be taken seriously with garbage like your last post, at least try to give some scientific support to your statements. Your bold statements for example, "it [CO2],can disrupt can currents" is total garbage, & it is statements like this, without proof, or at least a sound theory, that will finally put the nail in the coffin of global warming.

Tell me, do you consider king Neptune gave CO2 a paddle to stir the oceans, or do you have another theory?

With genuine temperature figures, not those homogenized by the BOM, we find we are having record night lows here, for the same reason we are having very high, [not record] highs. The air is very dry. As in my first post, this highlights that it is water vapor that moderates the planets temperature, CO2 is such a minor bit player that it is not worth considering.

Hi Hasbeen,

A week ago, Monday and Tuesday, in the weather reports, the Australian printed that the minimum temperature ever for those days was 9.1 degrees.

On the ABC, which I always listen to, the announcer said that the minimum temperatures on those mornings was nine degrees. Obviously, those anomalies were statistical outliers.

The maximum recorded temperature here in Adelaide occurred early this year, half a degree above the previous highest temperature recorded, back in 1939. Adelaide's population has gone up five times since then, since the days when there were few air-conditioners pumping out hot air. Half a degree difference in eighty years. Perhaps, a statistical outlier.

Joe

Struth, Hasbeen, your hypocrisy is astounding!

WTF did you think cause ocean currents in the first place?
I suggest you read http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Oceans.html rather than mocking what you don't understand!

Meanwhile I see you've failed to find a more plausible explanation than "King Neptune's Paddle" for how CO2 supposedly keeps water vapour out of the atmosphere. In fairness, though, that's probably because there isn't one.

What will it take for you to accept that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the heating it causes increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere?

Earth’s atmosphere contains 400 ppm CO2 (0.04%). Mars has a 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2 atmosphere. But Mars has surface temperatures that are about -75°C colder on average than Earth’s because atmospheric density, or pressure, is the “game changer” largely determining planetary temperatures.

Try that one Aidan, Try to talk enough bull dust about that to counter facts.

One more little fact for you aidan, The temperature of a planet depends on atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric density, or pressure, is the “big game changer”

Mars’ thin atmospheric density, or pressure (AP), reaches just 0.006 bar. Earth’s AP is 1 bar. The AP for Venus is 92 bar.

Interestingly, on the summit of Venus’s Maxwell Montes the AP [atmospheric pressure] drops from 92 bar to 45 bar. In turn, the surface temperature plummets by -82°C even though the CO2 concentration (96%) is the same at both locations

Hasbeen,
I'm not sure what your point is there. The link between pressure and temperature is very well known. High school students learn the reason for it in physics, and the effects of it in geography.

I wil point out, though, that pressure is not the only reason why Venus is hot and Mars is cold. Their distance from the sun also has a lot to do with it.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to counter facts. What I'm trying to counter is wild claims that run contrary to the facts.

BTW your claim about Earth's atmosphere containing 400ppm CO2 is already out of date. It's now about 415ppm. How high does it have to go before you stop pretending it's unrelated to the observed rise in temperature?

High school students learn the reason for it in physics, and the effects of it in geography.
Aidan,
Not In Australia if one goes by the latest figures ! Teachers here want a bigger slice of the profits from polluting industries before considering of providing better education. One of the main reasons for the Climate change debacle is the poor standard of education of our drug-saturated students !

individual,
Why did you outsource your thinking to the Murdoch Press?