21Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSorry to be posting a link, but the distinction is very well explained here: Water Vapor vs CO2 as a “Greenhouse” Gas « The Science of Doom
Hope that helps.
Sorry to be posting a link, but the distinction is very well explained here: Water Vapor vs CO2 as a “Greenhouse” Gas « The Science of Doom
Hope that helps.
Kalster I know you think there is a distinction between how GHGs work but I don't think there is. As the blogger you referenced states "water vapor responds to climate", as the atmosphere get warmer the molecules in the atmosphere get further apart making more room for other molecules and since water molecules are the most prevalent available to fill that void, they do. Climate, not CO2, is what water vapor is responding to. If CO2, NH4, NO2, and O3 in the atmosphere initiated the warming that allowed water vapor in, they would have a finite, not a feedback, effect proportional to the concentrations of these GHG molecules in the air. The feedback system requires water vapor to produce the radiative forcing that warms the atmosphere that allows for more water vapor to enter that produces radiative forcing that warms the atmosphere that allows for more water vapor to enter...etc. That is a feedback loop. If water vapor did not produce radiative forcing then the atmosphere would not get warmer as its presence increased and new water vapor would not enter the air, thus no feedback loop. The water cycle regulates this feedback loop and thus regulates global warming.Originally Posted by KALSTER
It doesn't regulate it, it enhances it. Remember water vapour condenses out of the atmosphere within about 9 days. Hold that thought.The water cycle regulates this feedback loop and thus regulates global warming.
At the point where that vapour condenses as snow, ice or rain, what will drive the next round of evaporation back into the atmosphere. What will determine whether the same, or a greater, or lesser, amount of water will evaporate?
What effects would you expect on the amounts of water vapour evaporating and condensing during a couple of decades where the long-lived greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane declined substantially. The same, more, or less?
If that decline in llghgs continued for a few further decades, what effect would you expect on the water evaporation and condensation cycle?
The wiki article on forcings and feedbacks is worth a look before you go much further with this. Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The seasons might help you understand better. At mid and high latitudes the vapor drops to very low levels every winter--according to your idea it would have a hard time pulling out of that winter. Of course that's not what happens, the combination of direct solar forcing and the level CO2 forcing starts warming the lower atmosphere---water vapor starts to increase, amplifying the overall effect etc.If water vapor did not produce radiative forcing then the atmosphere would not get warmer as its presence increased and new water vapor would not enter the air, thus no feedback loop. The water cycle regulates this feedback loop and thus regulates global warming.
What forces that climate though? Climate forcing agents do, like CO2. Its like the prop on a motor boat. The water is propelled, but the prop propels it; or a nuclear bomb where there is a chain reaction, but one initiated by something. The distinction is that the water vapour would not be there in the first place in the concentration it is without forcing agents like CO2.
You are putting the cart before the horse. Yes, water is a feedback gas, but the forcing gasses provide the impetus for the water vapour to even be there. That is the difference between a forcing agent and a feedback loop. Forcing in this context is not simply adding to the greenhouse effect.If CO2, NH4, NO2, and O3 in the atmosphere initiated the warming that allowed water vapor in, they would have a finite, not a feedback, effect proportional to the concentrations of these GHG molecules in the air. The feedback system requires water vapor...
This is just ridiculous! Such blatant ignorance after guidance has been offered!!
We can model the thermal history of the interior of the Earth based upon a slew of data that it would take me year even to simply summarise, but which would include data from asteroids, meteors, solar composition, the physics of radioactivity, geology, geophysics, seismology, with due attention to nebular theory, FEA calculations, and the tens of thousands of heat flow measurments I have given you a reference for.
We know how much heat is coming from the interior of the Earth. We have measured it, in detail, across the globe, for many decades. We know how much heat is reaching us from the sun. We have measured it, in detail, for centuries. these measurements indicte clearly and irrevocably that your perception, or speculaiton is wholly unfounded.
Not illogical. simply completely and utterly wrong.
Then why doesn't the logic match up with the data?Not illogical. simply completely and utterly wrong.
OK. I was trying to be kind. Your "earlier rationale" was not only wrong (completely, utterly, irrevocably, wrong) it was also illogical, ignorant, stupid, dumb and without any social, technical or scientific merit. And those were its strong points.
Proof that if you venture too far Out of the box you step in poop.
Not enough heat from the sun reaches the earth to support life. It takes the greenhouse effect to raise the temperature to life sustaining conditions.
For ****'s sake!! Are you being dleiberatly obtuse? We frigging well know that. The essential point, however, is that the amount of heat coming from the sun is many orders of magnitude greater than that coming from the interior of the planet. Do you now understand that simple fact?Not enough heat from the sun reaches the earth to support life. It takes the greenhouse effect to raise the temperature to life sustaining conditions.
If I concede the point that the amount of heat coming from the sun is significantly greater than that coming from the interior of the planet, could you provide me with a logical explanation as to why? The estimated data tells us that the temperature of the core is about 80% of the sun's temperature. Agree? The estimated data also tells us that the sun is about 93 million miles away from earth. Agree? I think everyone agrees that the sun radiates heat in all directions of space, not just focusing on earth. I think everyone agrees that the earth's core radiates heat in all directions, only effecting earth. The estimated data tells us that the earth's core is about 3000 miles away from its crust. Agree? Please explain the sun's greater radiant significance.
I share John Galt's frustration, for you know very little science, but seem to hold strong opinions. That unfortunate ignorant confidence is a tough barrier to overcome.
The sun is powered by fusion, which is a much more powerful process than the relatively feeble fissile decay of the tiny percentage of relevant isotopes in the earth. The sun is also really big. Really, really big. Ginormously awesomely huge. And each second, hundreds of millions of tons of hydrogen in its core are undergoing fusion.
The earth is small. The fraction of our small earth that is undergoing fission is itself so tiny that calling it "tiny" is grossly to inflate its importance.
So what are the numbers?
The measured insolation at the earth's surface is of the order of one kilowatt per sq. meter, in round numbers. The heat flux from the interior of the earth is a tiny fraction of that value. IIRC, the ratio (measured at the earth's surface) is something like 4 orders of magnitude or thereabouts. Not even close.
Last edited by tk421; September 7th, 2012 at 08:41 AM.
Its called being wrong but strong, and I am ok with that as long as it leads towards enlightenment. The more I argue, the more I learn and I hope that is the case for all of us.
If two different power sources produce roughly the same amount of heat, then what is the relevance of the sources of heat? Do you agree that the temperature of the core is about 80% of the sun's temperature?
Why? What is taking place to make this so?
It doesn't matter what the temperature is at the earth's core if it is effectively insulated from the surface.Why? What is taking place to make this so?
It wouldn't matter about the sun's radiation if the earth were surrounded by a gigantic reflective balloon.
And it certainly doesn't matter about the comparison between what energy the sun emits and what is held within the earth ..... because we've measured the results of both those phenomena at the surface of the earth - which is what matters to us. We don't have to speculate, estimate or logistimacate these things. We've measured them. And we're still measuring them.
Go back and reread #88.
If two different power sources produce roughly the same amount of heat, then what is the relevance of the sources of heat? Do you agreethat the temperature of the core is about 80% of the sun's temperature?
They are in no way comparible.
The interior temperatures: Earth ~5000K, ~Sun 15,000,000 K
Surface temperature: Earth ~288K, Sun ~8000K
The Sun puts out millions of times more energy (heat).
The Sun's energy is by radiation and arrives in minutes by radiation.
The Earth's interior energy takes thousands of years to reach the surface and is limited to conduction and convection--which are much less efficient.
And the amount of sun light reaching the surface of Earth is at least 1000 times stronger than that arriving from the below the surface.
Pretty simple to understand the huge differences.
Imagine if you microwaved a peach and it has a radioactive pip. Immediately after taking it out of the oven it will start to cool down and a temperature gradient will form ranging from hot at the pip to cooler on the skin. The pip produces a certain amount of heat per unit time. Soon, once the latent heat has dissipated, the pip will be the warmest ranging to coldest at the skin.
The temperature of the skin will depend on the amount of heat per unit time the pip produces and the rate at which the heat gets conducted to the skin before it radiates away. Agreed so far?
Your logic is broken here. You are equating temperature with energy. By your logic, if I have 1 picogram of a hot thing, or 1 megatonne of a slightly cooler thing, I'll get more work out of that picogram of material.
Does that really make sense to you?
I gave you the explanation (and after this post, I've edited my previous one a bit to provide more numbers). Others have also given you very good explanations in even greater detail, prior to my posts. Please actually read their explanations.
I have come across varying estimates for earth's core and the surface of the sun that when compared places the core temperature within 60-80% of the sun's surface temperature. I chose 80% because it works more in my favor. I have not explored the sun's core temperature before; interesting.
Do you think that the energy produced by the core is contained or absorbed by the mantle and crust?
Not really. As adelady points out, we already have measurements of the energy flux from the interior of the earth, and we have measurements of the energy flux from the sun. Since all that matters for your theory is energy -- not what mechanism produces it -- these measurements suffice. And as I pointed out, these energy fluxes are in a ratio of several orders of magnitude. The contribution by the earth's interior isn't even in the roundoff error.
Focusing on core temperatures is a bit of a distraction from the core truth (pun intended; you may groan) that adelady articulated.
I agree with most of what you stated above with the exception that many of the measurements you refer to are estimates. Check out this paper I came across by accident http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
It is short, but may stir up some questions.
It's short all right. Short on physical explanations for the not-very-wonderful correlations they find in the statistics they choose to look at.It is short, but may stir up some questions.
The biggest problem is right in here .....
If you look at this graph http://www.skepticalscience.com/grap..._temp_1024.jpg you'll see that the temperature and the Total Solar Irradiance curves have been going in opposite directions for most of the years since 1960.Would there be noticeable effects due to decreasing magnetic-field strength? Earth’s decreasing magnetic intensity results in, among others — increased solar irradiance (possibly the largest contributing error, although related to observed temperature variability), which is an observed trend in 1979-2000 global-irradiance data;
The biggest issue is that the writers make no physical explanation of how greenhouse gases, long-lived or otherwise, can quantifiably be excluded or discounted in favour of their explanation.
I would like to read part 2 but have been unable to find it.
Yes, go on.
Ok, so this setup reaches an equilibrium point where the temperature throughout the peach stays more or less constant with a fixed gradient.Yes, go on.
Now blow this up to a model earth size. With our model earth, the molten magma at the surface can get cool enough to solidify, because of the combination of the rate at which the core generates heat, the heat conductivity of the mantel and crust and the rate at which the heat that reaches the surface can radiate into space (forget about the sun for now). Even with the core at 4500oC or so, the crust can solidify and add further insulation, cooling the surface even further. You can see the insulation properties of solidified lava when you consider people can walk on newly solidified lava, while 700 - 1200oC molten lava is only a few cm below the surface.
Now add the oceans, nitrogen and oxygen. These gasses reach a certain temperature determined by conduction and convection from the surface mostly, with some IR radiation being caught by the water vapour. Also, some of the heat energy from the crust is consumed by the evaporation of water, which cools the average temperature of the crust further. This again will reach an equilibrium and this equilibrium gives a much lower atmospheric temperature than what we currently have.
Does that still make sense to you?
Are you describing the maturation of earth? If so, then in the beginning all water was water vapor until the earth cooled to below 100 degrees and condensed into the oceans. Water vapor came before water. Sorry if I got ahead of myself and went in the wrong direction.
Go on.
That is unclear. Some solar system formation models suggest there should have been little available water at Earth's orbit because it was well inside the snow line even our dimmer Sun's inner solar system.
Other studies suggest a sizable if not most of our Earth's water came from comets, which would have formed outside that same snow line. Comets Created Earth's Oceans, Study Concludes | Comets & Asteroids, Water in Space | Earth's Water & Life on Earth | Space.com
Despite the source, it would still start off as water vapor until the earth cools unless water showed up after it cooled.
That's the whole point, most of the water did show up in the form of comets, after the inner solar system planets had formed and started to cool.Despite the source, it would still start off as water vapor until the earth cools unless water showed up after it cooled.
What age in the earth's development did it cool to below 100 degrees Celsius. Some (When did oceans form on Earth?) think the oceans formed about 3.8 billion years ago. I am curious as to what the estimated temperature of the earth was at that age.
I guess water is a blanket that prevent heat loss (from Earth's core) and also capture heat from the sun that help life on Earth to flourish. Without it, the core will loose heat faster and the sun won't have enough heat to restart it again (ie: moon & mars has dead core and the sun can't do anything about it). -But still, the heat from sun is a significant energy source for all life on Earth, without them and without the greenhouse effect (such as water vapor, methane & CO2) the temperature difference between night and day will be extreme, (and yet the temperature difference is still significant when measured subjectively between day & night, indicating heat loss is still significant at least).
The thing about blanket is that it is like astronaut's space suit: an astronaut body produce heat but at insignificant amount compared to the sun (where sun felt much hotter), and so the suit is designed to fully insulate/protect the astronaut from the sun. As discovered by NASA engineers: a fully insulated suit actually cause the astronaut to became overheat so they had to introduce a cooling system instead; which is an irony IMO. -My point is: the blanket (such as greenhouse gas) will produce such dynamic which could baffle us.
Without greenhouse effect: Earth will cool down rapidly even with the sun shinning at full blast. The reason why greenhouse is significant is because it captures the sun's energy and won't let it bleed away into space. -The sun's energy at its absolute value is phenomenal (it is calculated to able to power 1000 years of human civilization just with 1 day of solar energy) but when without greenhouse effect the heat just bleed away into space at phenomenal rate too (in desert the temperature can quickly go down as the sun disappear, but *in contrast* in equator: the cloud can act as a greenhouse reflector and quickly heat up the air at an instant *preventing heat loss from the surface*).
---
*Interesting note: the greenhouse effect of cloud in equator is really interesting because you can immediately feel the effect. Usually, the air temperature will suddenly rise before it rains and you can feel it. -Since the ground is already heated up due to sunny day, when the clouds roll over it: it prevented the heat from escaping thus increasing the temperature.
Last edited by msafwan; September 8th, 2012 at 07:17 PM.
The atmosphere is warming, therefore humidity is increasing which leads to more atmospheric warming. I am aware of the estimated 9 day atmospheric presence of water, but would that not also increase with a warmer atmosphere. Not enough for the feedback loop to cycle out of control, but enough to gradually raise atmospheric temperatures in a slow trending pattern. Assuming warmer atmospheric temperatures extends the atmospheric presence of water, at what temperature does the humidity persists to the point of stalling the water cycle causing exponential amounts of water to enter the atmosphere and exponential feedback (catastrophic warming).
exponential feedback
Not likely. But totally impossible with water vapour alone. Trying to get a greenhouse effect enhanced, let alone accelerating, simply with heat being constantly exchanged in evaporation and condensation is just as impossible as any other perpetual motion process. You can't get out more heat than is already there.
There has to be something else driving it. Otherwise earth would never have emerged from the "snowball" condition - and it stayed that way for tens of millions of years. Until 'something else' drove the process of warming. The 'something else' was accumulated greenhouse gases from constant volcanic activity.
Why not with water vapor alone? Water vapor is responsible for 65 to 85% of the green house effect and water vapor is the only GHG that increases in concentration with warmer temperatures. Once the feedback system causes the water cycle to go out of equilibrium (which it may have already), reduction in all other GHGs would only slow the process, not stop it, and definitely not reverse it. Only returning the water cycle to equilibrium (possibly by cloud seeding) would the warming balance be restored.
There's a very strong negative feedback to increasing temperature, energy output increases as a forth power with temperature. We've probably have to push average temps up by 50K before having o concern ourselves with runaway greenhouse. It might have happened to Venus early one, but the amount of ocean there to start with is somewhat in doubt.
If you want to get a reasonable handle on water vapour's role in climate, try this short video.
When you've watched it once, go back, watch it again and pay special attention from 2.20 to 3.15.
Water Vapor and Climate - YouTube
Could you clarify your response about a negative feedback with temperature increase. Thanks.
The section which garnered special attention expressed how water vapor stays in the lower atmosphere while CO2 is evenly dispersed through all layers of the atmosphere and says that means CO2 has a greater effect on climate change without further explanation. If the reflection point of the sun's radiant heat is below all of earth's atmosphere what difference location of the GHG in the atmosphere make? In fact the lower level GHGs would absorb and redirect heat first and with more intensity. The end of the video somewhat reflects what I was talking about in my previous posts, but not exactly.
Not specifically. It is just to illustrate the basic physics of the earth and to get the concept of equilibrium across. From this you should have a basic understanding of why the earth's internal heat is not a major factor in heating the atmosphere. It is because it has been at equilibrium for a long time as far as we can tell.
Now to get a basic understanding of the greenhouse effect across with an analogy:
Imagine a bucket (atmosphere). A tap is running over it, dumping water (solar energy) into it. The bucket has a hole at the bottom, illustrating the escaping IR radiation. The smaller the hole, the more IR is caught by atmosphere. So, determined by the rate the tap is running at and the size of the hole, the bucket will fill with water to a certain level (energy content of the atmosphere) and reach equilibrium. If you make the hole smaller (increase greenhouse gasses, or other forcing agent increase), the bucket will get fuller until it reaches another equilibrium. The bucket will not simply overflow, because as the water gets more in the bucket, there is increased pressure and the water can escape at a faster rate through the hole.
Similarly, as the energy content of the atmosphere increases, it will also lose more IR radiation to space per unit time. So, given a set of parameters, the atmosphere will reach a certain level of energy content before reaching equilibrium between the rate IR hits earth and the rate it gets radiated away. Basically, the longer it takes for a certain amount of solar radiation to get radiated back into space, the higher the energy content of the atmosphere will be.
Still make sense?
Last edited by KALSTER; September 10th, 2012 at 03:58 AM.
The water bucket analogy was a little confusing but the second, more direct explanation is clear and I am and have always been in agreement with. Being that their is a direct correlation between temperature and water vapor, there is also the equilibrium of the water cycle that must be observed when determining atmospheric energy content and the rate of radiating this energy back into space.
Building on your bucket analogy: Imagine a bucket (atmosphere). A tap is running over it, dumping water (solar energy) into it. The bucket has a hole at the bottom, illustrating the escaping IR radiation. The smaller the hole, the more IR is caught by atmosphere. The increasing water volume in the bucket triggers a trickling flow of water from a second tap over the bucket (water cycle w/positive feedback loop), and as the volume in the bucket increases so does the flow rate of water from the second tap. As the hole shrinks the bucket begins to fill exponentially until it does overflow. Based on the flow rate of the second tap equilibrium cannot be reached. The only way to reach equilibrium is to minimize the correlation of bucket volume and second tap flow rate.
Sorry to post a link again, but I found a nice explanation why the water vapour positive feedback loop won't lead to a new Venus: Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming?
You can even choose between basic, intermediate and advanced explanations on that site. Very nifty.
I agree, it is a very nifty site and explanation about positive feedback. What I do not know is the strength of the reinforcing stimulus when it comes to water vapor. I need to find out the concentration of water vapor per degree increase in temperature. Also do you or anybody know if there is a correlation between atmospheric temperature increase and increase in the time water vapor molecules stay in the atmosphere (humidity length per unit time)?
Well, sorry again for the link, but: Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works
They give a few citations, including reference to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, which describes the conditions surrounding phase transitions of matter.
Thanks! This helps.
Water vapor is designated a short lived greenhouse gas, but since it is primarily responsible for keeping the earth at a life sustaining temperature, wouldn't it have to be at somewhat of a constant to maintain relative temperature equilibrium? So, although a particular molecule of water may only be vapor for a week, the concentration of total water molecules in the air would need to remain almost the same. That would mean that about the same water concentration has been in the atmosphere at least since life has been on the planet. IMO that makes water a very long lived greenhouse gas.
Well, as you read in the link, the water vapour content on average depends on the presence of forcing agents, like CO2, which why the big hullabaloo about CO2 is being made.
If atmospheric temperatures are responsible for the elevation of temperatures in our oceans (our largest source of water), then would not the atmosphere have a tremendously more significant effect in elevating the temperatures of all other smaller sources of water; such as our ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams? Would it not have a significant effect in raising the temperature of water contained in terrestrial life; such as plants, micro-organisms, and animals?
Yes, and it does. Your point is?
The ocean is not, repeat not, heated by the atmosphere. Water is heated by direct solar radiation to a greater depth than soils and rocks are. Check out this from #67.If atmospheric temperatures are responsible for the elevation of temperatures in our oceans (our largest source of water), then would not the atmosphere have a tremendously more significant effect in elevating the temperatures of all other smaller sources of water
The great big lump of heat in the oceans did not come from that little tiny sliver of heat in the atmosphere.
Indeed, the atmosphere is largely heated by re-radiation from the surface, rather than directly by solar radiation.
I guess I want to see if AGW as a cause of ocean temperatures rising adds up. Within most terrestrial life there is a relatively small internal thermostabilic threshold in which it can survive. Small changes (2 degree increase) places humans and other animals into a fevered state. Now I know life has adapted thermo-regulating mechanisms to allow life to stabilize the effects of some atmospheric changes but the amount of atmospheric energy need to raise the temperature of 1.4×1021kg of ocean, would seem to easily overwhelm any thermo-regulating mechanisms that life has in place for such a comparatively tiny mass of water contained in life.
The ocean is not, repeat not, heated by the atmosphere. Water is heated by direct solar radiation to a greater depth than soils and rocks are. Check out this from #67.If atmospheric temperatures are responsible for the elevation of temperatures in our oceans (our largest source of water), then would not the atmosphere have a tremendously more significant effect in elevating the temperatures of all other smaller sources of water
The great big lump of heat in the oceans did not come from that little tiny sliver of heat in the atmosphere.
If this is the case, then what is causing the ocean temperature to rise?
Could it be from the hole in the ozone layer allowing greater direct UV radiative heating?
UV does not heat water significantly. It's IR and visible light.
OK, there seems to be a consensus between Adelady, John Galt, and MeteorWayne that the oceans are not heated by the atmosphere, but by direct solar radiation. I think that the evidence is clear that our oceans are rising in temperature and I think we all agree on that. If the source of ocean heat is from direct solar radiation and the ocean temperature is rising, then the direct solar radiation must be increasing. Is there any study that demonstrates the steady rise in temperature from the sun? Solar flares or sun spots? How much of an increase in solar radiation would it take to raise the ocean temperatures at their current rate of elevation?
That is an incorrect conclusion because in order for temperature to rise the net heat must rise---that can happen by absorbing more heat or by a reduction in heat loss. While the oceans get most of their heat from direct solar radiation, they shed their heat at the ocean-atmosphere interface. A warming and more saturated atmosphere reduced the amount of heat the ocean can shed--that's why ocean heat content has continued to rise for decades, despite the small reduction in solar gain since about 1980.If the source of ocean heat is from direct solar radiation and the ocean temperature is rising, then the direct solar radiation must be increasing.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; September 17th, 2012 at 05:01 PM.
Are you saying that the atmosphere is being saturated with heat and thereby diminishing the heat flux that occurs from our oceans into our atmosphere?
Yes, plus a warmer atmosphere radiates more heat back into the water.Are you saying that the atmosphere is being saturated with heat and thereby diminishing the heat flux that occurs from our oceans into our atmosphere?
According to this lecture transcription I found (It's not very long) Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling , a warmer atmosphere equals a cooler ocean due to heat loss via net back radiation, conduction, evaporation, and convection. Here are the take away's from the lecture:
Take away ideas and understandings:If this is the case and a warmer atmosphere actually causes oceanic cooling, then what process is increasing the temperature of our oceans?
- Meridional heat and freshwater transfer: The ocean and atmosphere work together to move heat and freshwater across latitudes, as required to maintain a quasi-stationary climate pattern. The wind-driven and thermohaline ocean circulation accomplish this task for the ocean, by moving warm waters poleward, colder water toward the Equator. On average the ocean meridional heat flux is higher or at least equivalent to that of the atmosphere between the equator and 30° latitude, with the atmosphere becoming dominate at higher latitudes. Ocean currents of differing salinity also move freshwater from place to place to close the global hydrological budget. For example, salty water flows away from the evaporative subtropics to be replaced with lower salinity water from the tropics.
- Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface
- Any imbalance of the heat or freshwater budgets due to sea-atmosphere fluxes is compensated by transfer of heat and freshwater by ocean currents. Generally heat transport across latitudes is from the tropics to the polar regions, but in the South Atlantic Ocean the oceanic heat transport is directed towards the equator. This is due to the thermohaline circulation - as warm upper kilometer water is carried northward, across the equator, offsetting the southward flow of cooler North Atlantic Deep Water near 3000 m. Much of the heat lost to the atmosphere in the North Atlantic is derived from this cross equatorial heat transfer. The flux of freshwater in the North and South Atlantic is southward, as freshwater excess of the Arctic is brought into off set the net evaporation and influx of salty water from the Indian Ocean
Last edited by Out of the box; September 18th, 2012 at 12:35 PM.
According to this lecture transcription I found (It's not very long)It's explaining the cooling mechanisms, not attributing a change over time, or a trend for the net amount of cooling or total heat storage.Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling , a warmer atmosphere equals a cooler ocean due to heat loss via net back radiation, conduction, evaporation, and convection. Here are the take away's from the lecture:
The net change for both ocean and atmosphere are positive, and coupled, both get warmer and hold more heat. For the oceans the balancing negative flux is by the mechanisms discussed in the conference lecture you put up, for the atmosphere it's ultimately the increased radiation able to escape through the upper atmosphere according to stephan botzman law.what process is increasing the temperature of our oceans?
I respectfully disagree. In the lecture only one positive flux mechanism for ocean heating was stated; solar radiation. All other mechanisms discussed produced negative flux and ocean cooling. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation basically establishes that the warmer the atmosphere the cooler the ocean via evaporation.
Stefan Botzman's law explains how the ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature. Although this heat is absorbed and radiated back to the ocean by GHGs, back radiation has a net cooling effect on the ocean.
It has been stated in previous post, journal articles, and even in the lecture I cited, that direct solar radiation is the source for ocean heating. If atmospheric warming cools the oceans, then an increase in direct solar radiation must be the only cause for the increasing oceanic temperature.
It has been stated in previous post, journal articles, and even in the lecture I cited, that direct solar radiation is the source for ocean heating.
It is. What keep getting confused about it the change to the loss side, which effects the heat and temperature. You are confusing the change in loss terms.
--
I'll try one more time with a simple example.
You are sitting in your bed with 1 blanket covering you while reading a book, you bodies input is near base metabolism--it is constant.
Though conduction, radiation etc. you body is loosing heat through the blanket but for now you are in equilibrium and comfortable.
Your lover tosses an extra blanket over you. No more energy is being added to your body but now that there's more insulation you body temperature starts to rise. Will your body continue to rise until your skin boils.? Why not? Because as your temperature rises, it gets hotter and hotter until the energy being released through the balance once again is in balance with the base metabolic heat being added in.
The ocean is the same way with atmosphere--it's radioactive means to rid of heat become less effective because of back scattering, conduction is lower because the atmosphere is warmer and even most of the latent heat it gives up to the atmosphere is returned by rainfall onto the ocean. So it increased temperature to raise all those terms until they are in equilibrium. The net result is more heat in the ocean, despite unchanged (or slightly lower) direct solar heating.
Last edited by KALSTER; September 18th, 2012 at 06:09 PM. Reason: fixed quote tags
Please show where they claim that more heat in the atmosphere leads to cooling. You have misunderstood.
According to this lecture transcription I found (It's not very long) Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling , a warmer atmosphere equals a cooler ocean due to heat loss via net back radiation, conduction, evaporation, and convection. If this is the case and a warmer atmosphere actually causes oceanic cooling, then what process is increasing the temperature of our oceans?
Look at this bit from the passage on Net Back Radiation for example:
"The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."
What it means, is that at the current equilibrium, the ocean loses around 66 watts per square meter, but nowhere does it say that this amount would go up with higher atmosphere temperature. In fact, the passage suggests the opposite. It suggests increased greenhouse effects reduces the ocean's ability to lose energy through radiation.
From the Conduction bit:
"When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter."
Here, the bolded part suggests that a reduced temperature difference between the ocean and the air, reduces the air's ability to conduct heat away from the ocean. Do you understand how that works?
This is very true and I stated this effect in my last post, but according to Stefan Botzman's law the amount of heat being radiated by the ocean is its surface temperature to the power of four. The amount of heat being redirected by GHGs back to the ocean is significantly less than the heat being radiated from the ocean (go to the link in Kalster's post #141). This imbalance of radiative proportions means that the ocean will always lose more heat through radiation than it gains through feedback radiation, so ocean radiation will always have a net cooling effect on the ocean.
This is true only if the ocean is cooler than the atmosphere. If the ocean is warmer then it loses heat more efficiently via conduction. In an environment where the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean the conduction of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean is very inefficient, again producing a net cooling effect of the heating caused by direct solar radiation.
This is false just according to the definition of latent heat. Please read this link Latent heat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , but also a passage from the lecture explains the latent heat process: The water vapor leaving the ocean is transferred by the atmosphere eventually condensing into water droplets forming clouds, releasing its latent heat of vaporization in the atmosphere, usually quite remote from the site of the evaporation, thus representing a significant form of heat transfer, later heat transfer.
Rain is caused by a loss of heat, so it can not return heat to the ocean. Evaporation, due to latent heat, can only cool the oceans and does not participate in any system that can return heat to the ocean. Evaporation is also the most significant and effective form of ocean cooling. It is atmospheric temperature dependent, so the warmer the atmosphere, the more the evaporation. The more the evaporation the more the ocean cooling.
I agree that an equilibrium has been established between the solar radiative heating and all of the cooling mechanisms for our oceans, but remember that the argument being made is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere causes atmospheric warming which is somehow destabilizing the equilibrium of our oceanic cooling mechanisms, thereby causing our oceans to warm. It seems to me that it would take atmospheric cooling to destabilize the oceanic cooling mechanisms in a way that causes oceanic warming. Can someone produce a paper, lecture, link, journal, something that explains how our warming atmosphere is warming our oceans?
Read my last post.Can someone produce a paper, lecture, link, journal, something that explains how our warming atmosphere is warming our oceans?
You are absolutely right, feedback radiation has very little atmospheric temperature dependency.
On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction.
Yes, I get how that works and I agree, but conduction is the least effective cooling mechanism of all.
You left out the most effective oceanic cooling mechanism of there is; evaporation. Evaporation is atmospheric temperature dependent and is very effective at removing heat from the ocean and releasing heat into the cooler parts of our atmosphere. None of this information explains how atmospheric warming triggers oceanic warming or how any other mechanisms can lead to oceanic warming. The only ocean heating mechanism (solar radiation) must be increasing in intensity.
You are absolutely right, feedback radiation has very little atmospheric temperature dependency.
That's not what he said, nor is it really connected. The feedback radiation is strongly related to atmospheric temperature--it's a term to the forth power. As the lower layers of the atmosphere because saturated with evaporating water vapor, the amount returning is even higher.
What you are saying is correct, the amount of feedback radiation would increase with an increase in water vapor due to a warming atmosphere, but as a matter of proportions (and I don't have the numbers, yet) I don't believe the feedback radiation would ever be able to compete with the oceanic radiation radiating temperatures to the power of four that of its surface. Any feedback heat going into the oceans would be radiated back out again but by the power of four. Even with increasing water vapor how could feedback radiation ever catch up? That's why I said very little atmospheric temperature dependency.
Evaporation cannot cool the atmosphere. It's just one of the many mechanisms for shifting energy around between locations within the system.You left out the most effective oceanic cooling mechanism of there is; evaporation. Evaporation is atmospheric temperature dependent and is very effective at removing heat from the ocean and releasing heat into the cooler parts of our atmosphere.
The only way to cool earth's whole energy system is by radiation into space from the top of the atmosphere. At that point we have a problem. Because there are so many extra CO2 and water vapour molecules absorbing and re-radiating within the troposphere, the stratosphere is cooling. Remember that those molecules radiate in all directions, so a lot of radiation that might otherwise find a fast path to the top is intercepted more often and, each time, is just as likely to be radiated downwards instead of upwards.
And radiation is temperature dependent, so there is less capacity at the top of the atmosphere to radiate any surplus energy away.
How does that have anything to do with global temperature changes? Evaporation moves energy from one system to another, but it does not decrease the overall amount of energy present. Unless our planet is sweating and I'm not aware of it.
Evaporation cools the oceans, and releases heat into the atmosphere. Sorry for any confusion. Everything else you said is correct, and you brought up a very good point. Molecules do radiate in all directions. Many times when GHGs are discussed the heat they radiate is always described as going back towards the surface (as if all of the heat they radiate goes back towards the surface).
I am trying to find out why our oceans are heating.How does that have anything to do with global temperature changes?
The same reason the glaciers are melting and the soils are heating and drying out in some places.I am trying to find out why our oceans are heating.
The ocean gets heat from infra red radiation from both the sun and from the gh gases in the atmosphere. There are big differences between these 2 sources of energy.
1. The sun only shines for half the day. The gases are in the atmosphere 24 hours a day.
2. Total solar insolation has been static or declining for the last 30 years. CO2 concentrations are increasing year by year.
3. The global average temperature has been increasing. This means the atmosphere now holds more water vapour, which is a greenhouse gas capable of radiating energy 24 hours a day just like CO2 and the other GHGs.
Since atmospheric heating causes oceanic cooling via increased evaporation (read post's #159-168), I believe the oceans are heating due to another heat source.
It does not cause net ocean cooling; it increases the flux from one source (evaporation) toward cooling which is overwhelmed by the other heat flows.
You are completely free to believe whatever you want. However, may I ask what motivates you to come to a science forum, ask questions, receive answers from knowledgeable, informed individuals, about very basic concepts, and then declare that you don't believe them? That does not seem logical, captain.
Since I began this thread, I have received a great deal of knowledgeable insight and information from very quality sources. Each time I come across new information on this forum, I do further research with the sole purpose of invalidating the new information I've received. This serves two purposes: One, It allows me to gain new knowledge and new avenues for further research, and two, if I can invalidate the information received then my initial question still looms. You guys seem to thrive in a similar manner in that you do research to invalidate my invalidation, and we all gain from this feedback loop, hopefully until we reach a point where either I or you guys cannot invalidate the information being presented. I have learned so much in just one month and I thank all of you for participating in this thread and I encourage you to continue invalidating information I present, although some of you find it frustrating. Look at it as a fun challenge, and don't worry because I can be convinced, but none of you have done so yet.
Do you agree with the information presented in this lecture: Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling
i reserve my scepticism for interpretations that merit scepticism.
Last edited by John Galt; September 21st, 2012 at 02:21 AM. Reason: typo
What criteria needs to be met for you to determine if skepticism is merited?
You guys seem to thrive in a similar manner in that you do research to invalidate my invalidation,
Actually we don't. Most of us already know this information because quite honestly it's common to anyone who has dabbled in the natural sciences, and extremely basic to people with an education in climate, meteorology or oceanography or in physics which has touched on those subjects. The hard part is breaking it down to a level one not familiar with that basic material might understand without omitting something important or adding something that will certainly be misunderstood.
I suggest that a better approach you should take instead of researching with the "sole purpose of invalidating the new information," is looking for alternative explanations that might clarify why people who know more than you are saying what they are saying--than come here and ask relevant questions about the points that are still confusing to you.
Most of your confusion so far seems to be centered on not understanding that any effects that slow down the rate of heat loss for the oceans will in turn raise the level of heat for the oceans so until heat loss is back in balance with the gain. I can understand a bit of the confusion about effects of water vapor and perhaps added some confusion to the mix with my overly terse statement about heating from condensation&rain for the whole ocean and atmosphere system. Yes, the air can hold more water vapor as it increases, but once saturated the evaporation stops...meanwhile even unsaturated increasing water vapor dramatically increases the greenhouse effect which in turn impedes the effectiveness of radiative cooling by the oceans. This relationship is true even if the water vapor is transported to much higher latitudes.
Lastly non of the last couple pages support the heat from earth argument because science doesn't work that way. If there were really missing source of heat, (there isn't) we couldn't jump to the conclusion that it's a misreading of Earth's heat. The only direct evidence for the heart contributing from the bottom of the seas would by measuring it. I don't think there's any such evidence.
Any individual items from the following:What criteria needs to be met for you to determine if skepticism is merited?
1. Validated observations that conflict with current theory.
2. Self consistent interpretations of accepted observations that provide an alternative view.
3. Proposals that are not dressed in the trappings of pseudoscience.
I believe the arguments that I make meet one or more of those criteria, but since the consensus seems to be that I am more of a burden than a benefit, I will close this thread. Thanks for entertaining one of many of my thoughts and ideas.Any individual items from the following:What criteria needs to be met for you to determine if skepticism is merited?
1. Validated observations that conflict with current theory.
2. Self consistent interpretations of accepted observations that provide an alternative view.
3. Proposals that are not dressed in the trappings of pseudoscience.
The sun has been slowly increasing in output. I belive the forst three causes for global warming are:
1) Solar increases.
2) Black carbon/soot from Asia burning coal without clean burning technology.
3) CO2 and other antropogenic greenhouse gasses.
Not so.The sun has been slowly increasing in output.
Temperature and solar have been going in opposite directions for 30 years.
As for soot and all the other warming and cooling drivers of climate change ......
Here's a visual summary of the various radiative forcings:
This is from IPCC AR4 Section2.1
Last edited by adelady; September 30th, 2012 at 03:43 AM. Reason: overlooked soot etc
I have seen those for quite some years now. I am not a novice at this discussion. I know far mopre on the subject than most people here.Not so.The sun has been slowly increasing in output.
Temperature and solar have been going in opposite directions for 30 years.
As for soot and all the other warming and cooling drivers of climate change ......
Here's a visual summary of the various radiative forcings:
This is from IPCC AR4 Section2.1
Have you read the NASA material related to soot on ice, and the fact that they measure the sun as increasing?
Here are just a couple NASA articles on the solar trending.
Long-Term Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Variability Trends: 1984-2004
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
0.05% or 0.1% per decade may seem meaningless, but the sun provides the energy that the greenhouse effect comes from. The IPCC tries scaring us that the anthropogenic effect is 1.66 for CO2 and the total warming is 1.6. However, over that period of time, if you believe Lean et.al. 2004, the solar output has increased by 0.18% during that period of time. This alone accounts for about 1 watt/sq meter of the increase in downward radiative forcing. You see, the greenhouse effect is actually a feedback system itself.
I am a solid believer that politics is in control of climate science, rather than science. This is a tool of power over the people. Seek out the truth yourself, and any peer reviewed papers you read, do not trust, unless they have undergone an open peer review process rather than the closed peer review process most AGW papers go through.
Closed" peer review vs. open peer review?I am a solid believer that politics is in control of climate science, rather than science. This is a tool of power over the people. Seek out the truth yourself, and any peer reviewed papers you read, do not trust, unless they have undergone an open peer review process rather than the closed peer review process most AGW papers go through.
Which journals for which scientific disciplines use 'open' peer review? I haven't heard of it for Nature or Science or PNAS.
WC, there's a difference between min parts of the sunspot cycle, which is what the old non-peer review article you posted is referring to and total TSIs through the cycles (not just the mins).
-
As for open peer review...
Nature tried it for a bit, but found comments limited, often not very helpful as for the content and that there wasn't much interest among scientist to engage in the open reviews. Editorially there seemed some value.
Overall, not worth the effect. It's on the back burner:
Here's the summary:
Overview: Nature's trial of open peer review
I'd completely forgotten about that Nature effort.
I also overlooked the moves afoot by authors themselves towards online 'open for discussion' processes before submission. This gets minor issues of emphasis and sources of confusion in the writing out of the way as well as any serious errors in data presentation and analysis cleared up long before editors or reviewers get to see them. (This is also a mechanism being used more and more to undercut the power of some journals to make access to articles more difficult and expensive. Many universities and grant bodies are starting to make it a condition of funding that the results should be freely available rather than incurring costs for access to research results that they themselves funded.)
Anyone who doubts the value of editors and reviewers should have a look at the kind of train wreck you can finish up with when neither editors nor reviewers are used. Sea Level Rise along the Atlantic Coast of North America north of Cape Hatteras | Open Mind
I'm with Cephus on this. We all know how solubility of gasses in water works, right? When the oceans warm up like they have been, their solubility of gasses decrease. This means the warming is responsible for some of the increased atmospheric CO2. Man has introduced enough CO2 to put the earths atmosphere to a level of around 500 ppm if the ocean didn't absorb about half of it. The ocean should have absorbed more of it, but is warmer than it used to be.You're not listening. I already said man is responsible for *SOME* of the CO2 in the atmosphere to be sure, but not all of it, or even the majority of it. If we eliminated all man-made CO2 emissions entirely, the planet would still be heating up. Yet the global warming freaks claim that it's *ALL* man's fault, that man is to blame for the problem.
It's just not true.
Point being, even if we produced no CO2, the atmosphere would be greater. The long term absorption has a balance of about 98% ocean and 2% atmosphere between the two for CO2 equilibrium. Just a minor change in this equilibrium throws things off.
I will suggest that if the ocean had not warmed over these last 100-200 years or more, that our CO2 contribution would have amounted to the atmosphere still having less than 300 ppm.
Again, there is sufficient scientific evidence that the sun has increased in output by about 0.18% +/- a little since about 1750. The oceans absorb a substantial amount of this extra energy, and warm ever so slightly. This slight difference makes a large difference in atmospheric CO2.
John is right about the earth's core being insignificant. There just isn't enough heat variations to matter. I've seen the numbers pinned down before and the percentage of heat that tidal forces and radioactive decay add to the earth are something like 0.001%. I forget just how small, but it is real small. For a flux change from this already small percentage to be meaningful, there would have to be some catastrophic event in the magma.This is just ridiculous! Such blatant ignorance after guidance has been offered!!
We can model the thermal history of the interior of the Earth based upon a slew of data that it would take me year even to simply summarise, but which would include data from asteroids, meteors, solar composition, the physics of radioactivity, geology, geophysics, seismology, with due attention to nebular theory, FEA calculations, and the tens of thousands of heat flow measurments I have given you a reference for.
We know how much heat is coming from the interior of the Earth. We have measured it, in detail, across the globe, for many decades. We know how much heat is reaching us from the sun. We have measured it, in detail, for centuries. these measurements indicte clearly and irrevocably that your perception, or speculaiton is wholly unfounded.
Not illogical. simply completely and utterly wrong.
It only matters what the shallow parts of the ocean warms to as this is where the exchage takes place for equilibrium. The equatorial regions of the ocean are a net source of CO2, and the polar regions are a net sink. Mixing is relatively slow and the Thermohaline Circulation plays a role as well.
I agree. The ocean is heated by the sun.The ocean is not, repeat not, heated by the atmosphere. Water is heated by direct solar radiation to a greater depth than soils and rocks are. Check out this from #67.If atmospheric temperatures are responsible for the elevation of temperatures in our oceans (our largest source of water), then would not the atmosphere have a tremendously more significant effect in elevating the temperatures of all other smaller sources of water
The great big lump of heat in the oceans did not come from that little tiny sliver of heat in the atmosphere.
That graph is just one showing net changes from a fixed reference point. Seeing it compared in absolute numbers would be useful, and I'll bet it would look flat.
Two things.
1) The melting of ice sheets and glaciers.
2) Thermal expansion
I forget the numbers but I recall then as being about equal.
I will still argue that most the melting ice is a result of burning coal without the EPA standards the USA has.
Agreed, but UV does directly heat the oxygen and ozone in the atmosphere.
Are you saying that atmospheric CO2 is increasing partly because of oceans outgassing CO2 as they warm?When the oceans warm up like they have been, their solubility of gasses decrease. This means the warming is responsible for some of the increased atmospheric CO2.
If that were true, then oceans should be becoming less rather than more acidic. But they're not.
Fig 2: Annual variations in atmospheric CO2, oceanic CO2, and ocean surface pH. Strong trend lines for rising CO2 and falling pH.
The oceans absorb somewhere between 25 and 50% of our annual emissions. Remember atmospheric CO2 concentration increases by only half of our emissions each year, so that CO2 has to have gone somewhere.
This item Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin has a handy list of links to scientific papers as well as some good graphics and images (including the one above).
Except that liquid water has a higher albedo to IR compared to most of the solar spectrum. I doubt the extra IR has any significance.Yes, plus a warmer atmosphere radiates more heat back into the water.Are you saying that the atmosphere is being saturated with heat and thereby diminishing the heat flux that occurs from our oceans into our atmosphere?
Solar studies of the past few hundred years to present to show a long term increase in the suns output. Besides that, with the eccentricity of the earth reducing for the next 26,000 years and the southern hemisphere closest to the sun in the elliptical orbit at perihelion, these pay play a role also.
Yes, one article I linked addressed the lower end. the other addressed average levels. There was a third related one I found from NASA, but didn't find it with a quick look.
Real science would include the skeptics. Real scientists are real skeptics. Get the skeptics to agree with the papers, and now we have science. The closed review process simply has like minded individuals agreeing with each other.
You have my argument wrong. The ocean is still gaining in forms of carbon from atmospheric CO2 as a net result, since it is a net sink. Therefore more acidic.
Yes to the CO2 increasing partially from the warmth.
I will argue than on maybe a 10 year moving average, the oceans would absorb about 80% of the CO2 levels we add to the carbon cycle if they maintained the same temperature. I will argue that over a hundred years or so, this would increase to about 98% of the CO2 we add.
I will argue that if we added no CO2 to the atmosphere, the ocean would then be a net source instead of the net sink it is.
You have to look at the partial pressures of CO2. Not absolute levels. As one changes, the equilibrium dictates the other changes. Temperature, salinity, pH, etc, affect this equilibrium point.
Note... My moving average reference may be wrong. Two things are in play here. The ocean circulation, and the greater the imbalance from equilibrium, the greater the flux.
Not so. The best reference for deep ocean heating is Purkey and Johnson, An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie . As usual, it's behind a paywall so we need to look at commentary.The ocean is heated by the sun.
That graph is just one showing net changes from a fixed reference point. Seeing it compared in absolute numbers would be useful, and I'll bet it would look flat.
I like the title of this one, so it's the one I most often use Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us . (I also like the 'Salute to Oceanographers' note added to the bottom.) And there's a terrific explanation of how the energy gets into and out of the deep ocean through thermohaline and Antarctic circulation of bottom waters.
The 'billions of blow dryers' title comes from a remark by one of the authors.
I tried to find a couple of other papers I'd previously used, but it looks like my own memory disappeared along with my previous computer.the newly located reservoir of energy is akin to what would be liberated by loading every man, woman and child on Earth with five 1,400 watt hairdryers each and running those appliances continuously for the 20 year interval between measurements.
EDIT: That first link to AMS Journals Online still works despite the discouraging words.
| « I'm Tesla 2 from Poland not exist similar to me engineer http://www.maroszvsnewton.cba.pl | Challenges to the big bang. Are they credible? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
