|
Post by matt on Oct 19, 2010 23:36:59 GMT
Freeman Dyson has the right perspective on that: Saying climate scientists are making the mistake the atmosphere is an orderly clean and neat and simple physical process when it fact it is disorderly, dirty, messy and complex physical process. I call understanding that as "street smarts" science and Dyson gets it as he has actual experience with success/failure of complex stuff. Climate science is a science with no history of success/failure and by its own definition of itself won't have any for about 100 years. (evidenced by its reaction to its last decade of failure) From Wiki, Dyson on Dyson: Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." So he admits he's ignorant and just throwing a fit over attitude.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 19, 2010 23:40:32 GMT
are not clouds pretty much the largest WATER VAPOR negative feedback there is? No. Clouds consist of water droplets or ice crystals. And as such are part of the same hydrologic cycle. You cannot separate clouds from more water vapor. As the humid air rises - as it will as it is less dense - it will cool and water droplets will condense out releasing latent heat increasing the convective current carrying the heat spacewards. You cannot separate water vapor and clouds - that is the primary error considering only a radiative forcing effect and not the negative effects of clouds. But then you no doubt think it gets hotter when a cloud goes between you and the sun? Surely you should get a sudden burst of extra heat with all that positive feedback? - you don't do you - its called albedo. If you are really lucky you get precipitation of rain, hail or snow and that cools the surface yet more negative feedback. I have come to the conclusion that AGW proponents are easy to spot they are the ones lying out in heavy rain and snow to work on their tans
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Oct 19, 2010 23:46:55 GMT
Is any of this, including the NCEP/NCAR "reanalysis", based on actual observations (measurements) of humidity? Or is it all based on synthesized data?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 20, 2010 0:04:07 GMT
But then you no doubt think it gets hotter when a cloud goes between you and the sun? Clouds often occur at night, sometimes even at ground level. Sounds like you're in a fog.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 20, 2010 0:29:58 GMT
But then you no doubt think it gets hotter when a cloud goes between you and the sun? Clouds often occur at night, sometimes even at ground level. Sounds like you're in a fog. If there is no incoming heat then all the clouds do is slow the rate of departure of what heat remains. Insulation just slows the transfer of heat - it does not prevent it. So after a few cloudy days and nights the temperature will be lower. After a month of continual cloud things will be getting cold. The point is that AGW relies on all feedback being positive. It is not. AGW relies on all heat transport to the tripopause being radiative. It is not. Get over it and do real observational science starting with the hydrologic cycle. No-one understands clouds therefore no one can model the effect of clouds properly so observation of the effects of clouds would be a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 20, 2010 0:47:04 GMT
Is any of this, including the NCEP/NCAR "reanalysis", based on actual observations (measurements) of humidity? Or is it all based on synthesized data? Synthisized data. Model runs of clouds etc that no one knows enough about to run. The model has to be a slab type model, as the hydrological cycle is so variable second by second that it is, at this time, impossible to model.,
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 20, 2010 3:19:50 GMT
Freeman Dyson has the right perspective on that: Saying climate scientists are making the mistake the atmosphere is an orderly clean and neat and simple physical process when it fact it is disorderly, dirty, messy and complex physical process. I call understanding that as "street smarts" science and Dyson gets it as he has actual experience with success/failure of complex stuff. Climate science is a science with no history of success/failure and by its own definition of itself won't have any for about 100 years. (evidenced by its reaction to its last decade of failure) From Wiki, Dyson on Dyson: Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." So he admits he's ignorant and just throwing a fit over attitude. Not really. He is pointing out that AGW rue believers are jerks who lie. The technical claims of AGW promoters are falling apart as they are reviewed. Dr. Dyson is simply pointing out that the so-called cliamte scientists are not really much of scientists.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 20, 2010 4:24:21 GMT
Over at the Air Vent they were just pointing out that the parametrization in models completely ignores the pressure drop caused when the water condenses...DOH. So much for the models being based on "physics". noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/momentary-lapse-of-reason/As for "water vapor feedback"...as everyone has pointed out, water vapor feedback is not just in absorption. Cloud cover does indeed have a cooling effect. Precipitation is a double wammy...releasing heat at higher elevations and then the COLD water falls, slow warming as it goes, dropping the temperature of the whole column (everyone has felt this, especially from thunderstorms). Then we have the VAST increases to convection and the moist adiabatic lapse rate. Raw absorption even with HUGE increases in water content...will always be a weakly positive feedback...and increases logarithmically (ever-weaker) Latent heat is a powerful negative feedback (going up pretty much exponentially...ever stronger) Convection increases due to water vapor are also a powerful negative feedback (going up pretty linearly) Cloud feedback is also a powerful negative feedback. During the dry conditions of the glacial period, the absorption feedback is powerful while convection, cloud cover and latent heat are relatively weak (also, there's an added desert albedo component that we just don't see significantly during the interglacial). In an ever-warming world though...the negative feedbacks become increasingly powerful...leading to the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS drop in severity of temperature swings present in ALL PROXIES. Feedback is at most weakly positive...and likely significantly negative. The only place CO2 is going to have a significant impact is in the glacial period.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2010 9:52:52 GMT
are not clouds pretty much the largest WATER VAPOR negative feedback there is? Steve lives in Devon - they never see clouds Well it's not *quite* cloud free today - beautiful sunny day. Definitely need
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2010 9:57:38 GMT
Magellan,
You are being incoherent again. Feedback from water vapour is being compared with the temperature change not the level of CO2. That is what Dessler's study is about.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2010 10:01:14 GMT
Is any of this, including the NCEP/NCAR "reanalysis", based on actual observations (measurements) of humidity? Or is it all based on synthesized data? It's based on observations. As it is based on a combination of radiosondes and satellite data, the observations do need to undergo analysis. This gives certain people the opportunity to claim that the figures are fiddled (even though the sceptical scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer, Douglass, Paltridge and others have access to the data and the skills to analyse them).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 20, 2010 13:16:36 GMT
Freeman Dyson has the right perspective on that: Saying climate scientists are making the mistake the atmosphere is an orderly clean and neat and simple physical process when it fact it is disorderly, dirty, messy and complex physical process. I call understanding that as "street smarts" science and Dyson gets it as he has actual experience with success/failure of complex stuff. Climate science is a science with no history of success/failure and by its own definition of itself won't have any for about 100 years. (evidenced by its reaction to its last decade of failure) From Wiki, Dyson on Dyson: Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." So he admits he's ignorant and just throwing a fit over attitude. I realize Matt you don't think attitude is important which explains your attitude. But if you knew better and weren't so ignorant you would realize Judith Curry has it right about attitude and if she also has it right about AGW she might actually be able to convince somebody else once she gets enough science to do it and gets some support from the science community.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 20, 2010 13:23:02 GMT
You are being incoherent again. Feedback from water vapour is being compared with the temperature change not the level of CO2. That is what Dessler's study is about. Steve throws in a little anecdotal astrometeorology here. . . .the amateur variety. Half an analysis is an analysis for half wits.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 20, 2010 13:27:17 GMT
I realize Matt you don't think attitude is important which explains your attitude. I've seen plenty of bad attitudes from the deniers on this board. Calling mainstream scientists "lying jerks" for example. I've seen bad attitudes from the "lead deniers" too, calling for burying scientists under a pile of FOIA requests. Attitude matters, and the deniers have atrocious attitudes by and large.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 20, 2010 13:59:59 GMT
Attitude matters, and the deniers have atrocious attitudes by and large. That would be because its becoming painfully obvious that the so-called "deniers" are not the ones in denial. That the entire climate science establishment has been corrupted to the point that the entire thing will need to be overhauled. They threw out all other measures in favor of GRACE data because only GRACE data showed the data they wanted...even though it made ZERO SENSE for that region to lose ice since it sits in a depression and never gets remotely close to warming above the freezing point. They tweaked the data in numerous countries to show warming. They used "tricks" (LIED!) so they could claim unprecedented climate changes...then covered it up by illegally violating FOIA requests (and make no mistake...jones is GUILTY and only avoided jail because of an absurdly short statute of limitations). OHC data seems to have been adjusted up. Hansen keeps tinkering with temperatures to show increased linearity. Yes...I think our bad attitudes have been well earned by the very leaders you foolishly follow.
|
|