|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 3, 2009 14:19:51 GMT
mm yeah, you can't ask developing countries to cut down on emissions before they have some other way of energy production. I don't know what the Met O states, but at least here the KNMI does not state anything extraordinary or it will state that it uncertain.
Mm, I hear the complete global warming swindle movie haunting this topic again. Do you really expect me to reply on everything that is stated here with a long detailed post including all references? I really can't write down everything I know or have read/studied even though I have only been here on earth for 25 years. Maybe others will.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 3, 2009 14:29:43 GMT
The atmosphere can actually hold water, a 7% increase for a 1K temperature rise. That's the point he's missing.
Anyway, oceans absorb a grand portion of CO2 quite rapidly. The total residency time may be longer, but most of the CO2 will be absorbed by the ocean (buffering) and so increase the ocean's acidity. Measurements have shown a recent increase in oceanic acidity. A very detailed analysis with references can be found in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 3, 2009 15:09:58 GMT
mm yeah, you can't ask developing countries to cut down on emissions before they have some other way of energy production. I don't know what the Met O states, but at least here the KNMI does not state anything extraordinary or it will state that it uncertain. Mm, I hear the complete global warming swindle movie haunting this topic again. Do you really expect me to reply on everything that is stated here with a long detailed post including all references? I really can't write down everything I know or have read/studied even though I have only been here on earth for 25 years. Maybe others will. Choose one topic that you think best supports the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Is that too much to ask?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 3, 2009 15:24:25 GMT
The atmosphere can actually hold water, a 7% increase for a 1K temperature rise. That's the point he's missing. Anyway, oceans absorb a grand portion of CO2 quite rapidly. The total residency time may be longer, but most of the CO2 will be absorbed by the ocean (buffering) and so increase the ocean's acidity. Measurements have shown a recent increase in oceanic acidity. A very detailed analysis with references can be found in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report. The atmosphere can actually hold water, a 7% increase for a 1K temperature rise. That's the point he's missing. And you have ZERO evidence for whether that increase in water vapor results in X temperature rise from CO2 increases. Nonetheless: www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdfand www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1140746Satellite data does not support the positive feedback mechanism so often assumed without experimental data, nor that water vapor can continue to accumulate in the atmosphere ad infinitum. Precipitation systems limit it. Also, if warming is a response to increasing water vapor, that would imply a runaway greenhouse effect as it would necessarily pile on if the theory holds water. Rather, increasing water vapor is a response to warming and has a limiting effect; a thermostat. This is supporting evidence for Miskolczi. According to DOE (Dept. of Energy) stats, 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of natural origin and ~2.75% is human caused. The missing CO2 sink may or may not be included in that data, I'm not sure. I am not interested in searching through thousands of pages of IPCC AR4. Please cite the specific evidence supporting the notion the oceans are now or will become acidic. I also have sources, but at this point it is your move since your made the claim.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 3, 2009 17:09:03 GMT
For the record, the main body of the IPCC report (all 1000 or so pages for WG1 which concerns itself with the physical basis) is authored by scientists with a background of peer reviewed publications, and reviewed mostly by scientists but also by self-nominated "expert reviewers" whose comments are supposed to be supported by peer-reviewed science for them to be incorporated. If reporting the scientific support for the potential of severe impacts due to human-induced climate change is advocacy, then so be it. The Summary For Policy Makers is where the scientists and politicians get together and thrash out a summary interpretatation of the main report. PS. as someone who occasionally has to go on very boring Health and Safety Courses run by super-cautious people with first hand knowledge of cases of death caused by inappropriate use of an office stapler, "Risk" as used in the IPCC terms of reference has a technical meaning which really means "potential risk". The idea that there are not hundreds of papers, by eminent scientists, disputing AGW is inaccurate. Depends what you mean by AGW. There are not hundreds of papers disputing the link between human-induced rising CO2 levels and warming. Even many of the "sceptical" scientists accept this. There are hundreds of papers disputing the impacts of this, and there are many such disputes reported in the IPCC report. For example, there are multiple methods for estimating the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2. That's the nature of science. You've stretched your point a bit too far with your imagery of a left-wing conspiracy. Even so, there is little evidence that good papers are failing to make it through peer review through prejudice, and good evidence that sceptical papers (even some flawed ones) are making it through. Not even by the 20,000 excess deaths in Europe in 2003? Not even by the measured reduction in crop yields during warmer years? Not even by the continued rising of the sea given that it will eventually inundate heavily populated areas should warming continue? Not even by the fact that much of the infrastructure of Westerrn countries is built using temperature tolerances that will be exceeded if the warming continues?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 3, 2009 17:15:42 GMT
steve writes "If reporting the scientific support for the potential of severe impacts due to human-induced climate change is advocacy, then so be it." If you really believe this, then I for one will find it impossible to discuss proper science with you. Science and advocacy simply cannot co-exist. At least, not what I understand science is. Jim, you've got my point back to front. I am arguing that a scientific paper presents an observation. The IPCC as a body has asked that the science be summarised, and then used to guide policy. This is little different to many other areas of science in the public health arena such as vaccines, food health, construction safety standards and the like. You are choosing to regard it as "advocacy" and therefore not "science". But that is not the real world at all!
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 3, 2009 18:05:15 GMT
Is all this not just determining how many angels sit on the head of a pin? I like the casino analogy. Everyone plays different games, at all times people are winning and losing in various amounts, but in the end, the casino wins. It's just a matter of time. In our case, and in respect of climate, the casino is the present ice age. There will be warm and cold periods, probably. We will at some point became aware of increasing glaciation. We have probably passed the end of the Holocene. It will get colder - much colder. The strength of winds and storms will heighten. In two thousand years, we will not experience rising tides. We in the northern hemisphere, at least, will be under several hundred feet of ice, which will be increasing. Is it too early to plan for this? Absolutely not, considering the factors of inevitability and consequence. This is not alarmist. It is pure sophistry to postulate that our scientists, who have not had an original thought since Copernicus's estimate of infinity, and Jeremiah Horrock's early works in respect of gravity and tides (heavily borrowed upon by Newton), can reliably come to a conclusion of any substance in climatology. And with regard to who has the most "scientists" onside, it always brings to mind what Einstein said when informed of the Nazi's attempt through a petition of scientists to portray him as being an inept scientist: 'I am surprised, It should take only one scientist to prove I am wrong.'
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 3, 2009 18:25:50 GMT
steve writes "Jim, you've got my point back to front. I am arguing that a scientific paper presents an observation. The IPCC as a body has asked that the science be summarised, and then used to guide policy." I dont think I have got your point wrong at all. I dont agree that what you say that the IPCC did, is, in fact, right at all. The IPCC got the "scientists" to present an extremely biased report, which presented only those "scientific" "facts" which support AGW. This is not science. True science presents an unbiased report with all the warts; including ideas which argue against AGW, if there are any. This is what I complain about. I have no problem having advocates arguing that AGW is a problem. I have no problem if some of these are scientists, as long as the scientists state that they are advocates. What I object to is people claiming they are scientists, and are presenting a scientific report, when in fact they are advocates presenting "science" that is deliberately biased to support their point of view.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 4, 2009 1:58:02 GMT
aj1983Not sure what your answer was alluding to apart from a vague reference to lag. The rest was just pure carbon tax material. Let me point you in the right direction: The Cambrian period (505 to 590 million years ago) had a C02 level of 7000 yes thats right its not a stutter 7000ppm whilst the temp was 22C The Ordovician period (438 to 505 million years ago) had a C02 level of 4000ppm whilst the temp was again 22C. The Triassic period (213 to 248 million years ago) had a C02 level of 1500ppm and the temp was yet again 22C The cretaceous period (65 to 144 million years ago) had a C02 level of 800 to 2000ppm and the temp was yet again 22C. You said "What's different this time? Roughly: This time WE are adding CO2, so now we are amplifying this feedback, with a greater temperature response." Obviously you where not aware of the geological record feel free to retract this statement when you are less busy. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 4, 2009 11:07:45 GMT
Some people seem to be unfamiliar with the water vapor theory. My statements are based on the following assumptions: 1) evaporation increases when temperature rises 2) clausius clapeyron (vapor pressure and temperature relation) 3) I leave it to you guys what this assumption should be 4) H2O is a greenhouse gas and the spectrum is not saturated. The clausius clapeyron equation is the physical mechanism which limits the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere in the presence of a large body of water. This also strongly determines the amount of precipitable water. 3) is of course the assumption that the relative humidity stays constant. Here problems arise because models predict it might not. (It might be a bit lower, and the increase in precipitation might be less than expected. In places far from evaporation sources with little advection the relative humidity might have a lag. I recently read an article with a small Still you would need a gigantic global decrease in relative humidity to compensate for the clausius clapeyron effect.) For the ice age section, see articles from Oerlemans et al. crakar24: please don't lecture me on paleoclimatology, except if you know something really specific and interesting. You are talking about tens to hundreds of millions of years ago, when continents and ocean currents were completely different, the atmospheric composition was completely different, volcanic activity was different and TSI was lower. You could almost be talking about a different planet. It is an error made by many (even geologists), while working with it they do seem to forget how different earth was and how terribly long ago that is. I'm not going to give you references about this, go find them yourself, they can be found everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 4, 2009 14:48:44 GMT
Some people seem to be unfamiliar with the water vapor theory. My statements are based on the following assumptions: 1) evaporation increases when temperature rises 2) clausius clapeyron (vapor pressure and temperature relation) 3) I leave it to you guys what this assumption should be 4) H2O is a greenhouse gas and the spectrum is not saturated. The clausius clapeyron equation is the physical mechanism which limits the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere in the presence of a large body of water. This also strongly determines the amount of precipitable water. 3) is of course the assumption that the relative humidity stays constant. Here problems arise because models predict it might not. (It might be a bit lower, and the increase in precipitation might be less than expected. In places far from evaporation sources with little advection the relative humidity might have a lag. I recently read an article with a small Still you would need a gigantic global decrease in relative humidity to compensate for the clausius clapeyron effect.) For the ice age section, see articles from Oerlemans et al. crakar24: please don't lecture me on paleoclimatology, except if you know something really specific and interesting. You are talking about tens to hundreds of millions of years ago, when continents and ocean currents were completely different, the atmospheric composition was completely different, volcanic activity was different and TSI was lower. You could almost be talking about a different planet. It is an error made by many (even geologists), while working with it they do seem to forget how different earth was and how terribly long ago that is. I'm not going to give you references about this, go find them yourself, they can be found everywhere. In the real world doesn't water act as a bit of a fly wheel. I mean that as the humidity increases the temperature peaks and valleys flatten. Your basically saying that water vapor in air increases with temperature. This is true in a Lab. In the real world if the Vapor content increases at the surface. Clouds will form at higher elevations and cool the ground below. When it's cooler at the ground then clouds dissipate and the ground warms. For to simple examples of this. Check the average low in Death Valley,CA and Juneau, AK Water has powerful feed back both negative and positive. Saying otherwise is ignoring the weather.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 4, 2009 15:14:54 GMT
ah, you are mixing two processes together. You are looking at the effects of clouds on global temperature, which is a completely different issue. I was saying IF you raise the temperature of an atmospheric parcel, then, if relative humidity stays constant the water content of that atmospheric parcel increases due to the clausius clapeyron relation. This raises temperature as H2O is a strong greenhouse gas.
Clouds cool the surface (during daytime...), but warm the atmosphere by latent heat release. The net effect of clouds is quite uncertain, but generally high clouds have warming effect and low clouds a cooling effect on surface temperatures. The total effect of clouds on earth is thought to be slightly negative.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 4, 2009 15:35:28 GMT
aj1983 writes "ah, you are mixing two processes together." That is as maybe. The fact of the matter is, that no matter what the IPCC claims, there is no physics which demonstrates whether any feedbcack mechanism from water is positive or negative. The IPCC claims it is positive. There are arguments that it is negative. There is no experimental data to show which side is right. And if the feedback mechanism is negative, then the sensitivity of how much increased levels of CO2 warm the atmosphere, has been vastely overestimated by the warmaholics.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 4, 2009 15:50:52 GMT
ah, you are mixing two processes together. You are looking at the effects of clouds on global temperature, which is a completely different issue. I was saying IF you raise the temperature of an atmospheric parcel, then, if relative humidity stays constant the water content of that atmospheric parcel increases due to the clausius clapeyron relation. This raises temperature as H2O is a strong greenhouse gas. Clouds cool the surface (during daytime...), but warm the atmosphere by latent heat release. The net effect of clouds is quite uncertain, but generally high clouds have warming effect and low clouds a cooling effect on surface temperatures. The total effect of clouds on earth is thought to be slightly negative. The point your missing is that the above process can't happen in the earth environment. Because of the fact that no matter how much water gets evaporated. The air will quickly cool as the now moisture laden heated air rises. This will cause clouds, blocking the sun thus cooling the air below. To the point of mostly raising the temp at night v/s cooling during the day. Well that really depends. Moisture in the above example is extreme. Try this one. Look at the average hi and low temps for Iowa and Pennsylvania. The humidity is higher in PA than Iowa, with this the temperature extremes are lower. Water vapor makes the day time temps lower and the night time temps higher. But the reverse is also true. It is a great stabilizing force. The high temps are lessened in PA due to the fact that a huge amount of water vapor would need to be heated at the peak of the day. The low temps are prevented due to the massive precipitation required to cool the air. These processes can't happen fast enough in the amount of time. Also, I'm not just speaking of clouds. Water vapor to form clouds (liquid water) removes a bunch of heat as well. So just the process of creating the clouds is a negative feed back as well for the higher elevations. Before you say it. I know I'm talking weather not "climate". How do we derive the measure of climate? From the weather? In your final sentence you say that the net result of water vapor is cooling.... How is this possible and have global warming? Or are we really just worried about the .5C additional increase that CO2 could make?
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 4, 2009 17:40:25 GMT
aj1983 writes "ah, you are mixing two processes together." That is as maybe. The fact of the matter is, that no matter what the IPCC claims, there is no physics which demonstrates whether any feedbcack mechanism from water is positive or negative. The IPCC claims it is positive. There are arguments that it is negative. There is no experimental data to show which side is right. And if the feedback mechanism is negative, then the sensitivity of how much increased levels of CO2 warm the atmosphere, has been vastely overestimated by the warmaholics. It's very likely that the effect of clouds depends on atmospheric temperature, down to "snowball Earth" levels. One thing that water vapor does a very effective job of is raising heat up into the atmosphere. This is done by transporting water from surface level, where heat is added to form vapor, up into the atmosphere, where heat is lost to form rain. As people have pointed out before, CO2 IR absorption is saturated at low altitudes, but at higher altitudes, where the atmosphere is thinner, IR absorption is lower, giving IR an easier path to space. Where moderation comes into effect has to do with relative humidity and the affect of atmospheric temperature on the ability of the atmosphere to hold water. The absolute humidity increases exponentially with temperature for a constant relative humidity. What that means is that as temperature rises, the ability of moisture to stay in the air during overnight low temperatures decreases. And that means that as the temperature rises, more heat is raised into the atmosphere where it has a better chance of radiating out to space as latent heat of evaporation. And THAT is why I keep telling the warmies that "Climate Change" is a better name than "Global Warming". Doesn't mean AGW isn't going to happen, just that it will look a lot more like chaotic weather (which we are seeing) than monotonic rises in annual temperature (which we aren't seeing).
|
|