|
Post by icefisher on Jul 2, 2010 18:24:38 GMT
If there is a global increase of 1C, and if there is a matching global increase in the absolute humidity of a few percent (to retain approximately the same relative humidity) then the desert will still be hot during the day and will cool quickly at night. But may not cool quite so quickly due to the additional water vapour in the atmosphere. So the effects of the positive feedback are there but are more subtle than the difference between a desert and a tropical rainforest. I think you need to also explain: 1) transport of heat up away from the surface via the process of evaporation adding that extra moisture into the atmosphere to recoup the relative humidity (desert or otherwise as if there is no moisture to do this you have no positive feedback) then, 2) within a shorttime the condensation of that water vapor leaving dry hot air well up in the troposphere with the resulting water droplets reflecting sunlight back to space. then 3) Also some incoming SW will be absorbed at that level burning off the clouds absorbing heat otherwise destined to the surface transporting it higher to condense and leave the heat there while reforming clouds and 4) eventually condenses so much it falls as rainfall cooling the surface once again with that really cold water than left all its heat up in dry air in the upper troposphere. So I accept your simple explanation as a cherry picked examples of positive feedback but you did not describe the entire process nor apply values to any part of it. So I am supposed to conclude from your simple simon statement that there is positive feedback? You feed me bullshit that this process which is all about cooling actually warms more than it cools yet you provide no math, no physics, nothing but half a process.The actual process is almost certainly water taking net heat off the surface. I just don't buy the warmist faith that all planetary cooling has to be a photon emitted from the surface of the earth or the surface of the water making it safely through the greenhouse gas mine field of the atmosphere. Even Trenberth suggests that is only about 1/6th of the net cooling and the NASA chart suggests it about 1/12th. The rest is being emitted by the atmosphere somewhere above the surface already. I have a sneaky feeling its a 12th based upon observations but nobody wants to actually say it out loud because this in inextricably linked to the billions expended on running GCMs with radiative models built on the former. Gee we stopped considering it an experiment the horse got the bit in his teeth and he ran with it!!! Rather than seeing a single experimental Atlas rocket exploding on the launch pad we are being regaled with the horrifying sight of seeing a salvo of 30 of them exploding all at once!! Small wonder NASA employees would want to keep their heads down!!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 2, 2010 22:52:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jul 3, 2010 7:55:20 GMT
That interview with John Christy was very good.
I like his general rule: "If it happened before, it will happen again ... and probably worse."
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 3, 2010 12:07:42 GMT
Icefisher, you talk as though these processes only happen if it is getting warmer.
These processes happen all the time. The question is whether they change when it gets warmer.
The paper posted by William on page 3 of the Climate Models thread is an answer to your conundrum.
If more heat is transported to the upper troposphere as latent heat in water vapour, it is combined with some of that water vapour *staying* in the upper troposphere.
The small increase in upper troposphere water vapour adds to the greenhouse effect.
Lindzen tries to look for mechanisms whereby the water vapour dumps its heat by condensing, and then the air descends taking the moisture with it. This can happen sometimes, but other times there is wind sheer that interferes with the convective process spreading the humidity throughout the troposphere.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 3, 2010 14:19:44 GMT
Lindzen tries to look for mechanisms whereby the water vapour dumps its heat by condensing, and then the air descends taking the moisture with it. This can happen sometimes, but other times there is wind sheer that interferes with the convective process spreading the humidity throughout the troposphere. LOL! Tries? ROTFLMAO!! I think a lot of people are trying to mathematically describe how the atmosphere works Steve. But observations are demonstrating some people are more wrong than others.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 5, 2010 7:09:45 GMT
Yes Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and Douglass do seem to be more wrong than most. I'm glad you agree for once Seriously, though, Lindzen's mechanism appears to exist. The problem is that it doesn't seem to happen as frequently as he would like in order to prevent moistening of the upper troposphere.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2010 14:36:47 GMT
Yes Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and Douglass do seem to be more wrong than most. I'm glad you agree for once Seriously, though, Lindzen's mechanism appears to exist. The problem is that it doesn't seem to happen as frequently as he would like in order to prevent moistening of the upper troposphere. I get the difficulty in measuring elemental concepts using short lived phenomena in a complex system. But 15 years of no statistically significant warming with no end in sight is posing its own set of problems for warmista theories. The short term problem is in understanding climate which I can really appreciate. The long term problem is a problem with the theories of people who think they do understand it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 5, 2010 14:48:24 GMT
I assume you are not dumb enough to think that "no statistically significant warming" means no warming.
The last 10 years have been warmer than the 1990s with a high statistical significance.
But if I assume that you are not dumb enough to thing such a thing, it means that you are happy to try and mislead. I challenge you to explain why your quote about the statistical significance or otherwise of the last 15 years' warming is not as you imply.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2010 15:39:58 GMT
I assume you are not dumb enough to think that "no statistically significant warming" means no warming. The last 10 years have been warmer than the 1990s with a high statistical significance.So you need to pull in a huge volcanic event to generate your warming? We all know Pinotubo significantly cooled global climate for several years in the first half of the 1990's. But if I assume that you are not dumb enough to thing such a thing, it means that you are happy to try and mislead. I challenge you to explain why your quote about the statistical significance or otherwise of the last 15 years' warming is not as you imply.And you happily rely upon a well identified volcanic anomaly to argue your AGW? And that is not dishonest and misleading? You need to brush up on ethics if you are going to go around and accuse others of crossing a line you draw and trample yourself.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jul 5, 2010 18:33:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2010 20:13:45 GMT
This seems to be a quote that fits my point of view on this topic that its going to get tough in climate science as time goes on: "But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult."" Let me translate slightly to what he is saying. Reducing uncertainty is what the public and politicians expect from their money and mother nature is teaching us a lesson in humility. The overselling of climate change is likely to have same impact as overbuilding a housing tract that has been 100% financed/guaranteed by banks/GMOs has on the public who has to clean up the mess. If there were any dollars to spend on energy conservation its been squandered and today with climate change occupying the bottom spot in public ratings its time for a series cancellation and a new show called stripping of bureaucracy to lower taxes, lowering barriers to entry, encouraging innovation, and promoting small business to mitigate the damage that over-regulation has already wrought. The environmentalist community got their chance to run a 5 year social plan. The next plan should be to clean up the mess they made of it.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 5, 2010 20:19:23 GMT
This seems to be a quote that fits my point of view on this topic that its going to get tough in climate science as time goes on: "But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult."" Let me translate slightly to what he is saying. Reducing uncertainty is what the public and politicians expect from their money and mother nature is teaching us a lesson in humility. The overselling of climate change is likely to have same impact as overbuilding a housing tract that has been 100% financed/guaranteed by banks/GMOs has on the public who has to clean up the mess. If there were any dollars to spend on energy conservation its been squandered and today with climate change occupying the bottom spot in public ratings its time for a series cancellation and a new show called stripping of bureaucracy to lower taxes, lowering barriers to entry, encouraging innovation, and promoting small business to mitigate the damage that over-regulation has already wrought. The environmentalist community got their chance to run a 5 year social plan. The next plan should be to clean up the mess they made of it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 6, 2010 6:33:44 GMT
I assume you are not dumb enough to think that "no statistically significant warming" means no warming. The last 10 years have been warmer than the 1990s with a high statistical significance.So you need to pull in a huge volcanic event to generate your warming? We all know Pinotubo significantly cooled global climate for several years in the first half of the 1990's. But if I assume that you are not dumb enough to thing such a thing, it means that you are happy to try and mislead. I challenge you to explain why your quote about the statistical significance or otherwise of the last 15 years' warming is not as you imply.And you happily rely upon a well identified volcanic anomaly to argue your AGW? And that is not dishonest and misleading? You need to brush up on ethics if you are going to go around and accuse others of crossing a line you draw and trample yourself. Hmmm...so Pinatubo was the cause of the 1990s being cooler than 2000-10, and claiming it is not is dishonest and misleading? I'm glad I wasn't around for that big volcano in the 80s or Yellowstone going up in the 70s. Meanwhile back at the ranch of sanity - I continue to challenge you to explain why your quote about the statistical significance or otherwise of the last 15 years' warming is not as you imply.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 6, 2010 7:07:55 GMT
Hmmm...so Pinatubo was the cause of the 1990s being cooler than 2000-10, and claiming it is not is dishonest and misleading? I'm glad I wasn't around for that big volcano in the 80s or Yellowstone going up in the 70s.
Meanwhile back at the ranch of sanity - I continue to challenge you to explain why your quote about the statistical significance or otherwise of the last 15 years' warming is not as you imply. Who said the 90's weren't warmer than the 70's or 80's. Do you always set up strawmen like that and try to push positions down other peoples throats? One can see very clearly there was warming and one can see the PDO oscillation switch to a warm phase coincided with it. Further there was cooling in the early 90's due to Pinotubo or are you denying that? I doubt if we can accurately say how much it was other than there is a clear signal of cooling in the record that lasted until around 1995 which was 15 years from the present. Since then warming has been statistically insignificant. Have a cow Steve I could care less but stop making up stuff.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 6, 2010 8:08:46 GMT
2000-2010 was warmer than the 90s which was warmer than the 80s which was warmer than the 70s. Volcanoes cannot explain it.
Bringing up a volcano in the 1990s is an attempted misdirection to my question as to how you can honestly claim the following:
and
Well I gave you lots of opportunities to answer and as usual you attempt to redirect, or demand beef.
There is a just under 95% chance that warming measured by HadCRU from 1995 to 2009 was positive.
So the first statement is false.
2010 has been warmer.
So the second statement is likely false - the "end" is in sight or has passed - and the warming in the last 15 years is "statistically significant to the 95% level".
(This of course ignores the fact that the ocean heat content rise is definitely significant in the last 15 years).
|
|