|
Post by steve on Apr 19, 2009 19:29:43 GMT
Magellan's charts - mid Troposphere. Steve's charts - lower Troposphere. Steve, how about showing a mid Trop chart to compare apples to apples, or argue why mid and lower Trop temp anomalies should be the same. The mid-troposphere data is the average of a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratosphere. The cooler stratosphere is partially caused by increasing CO2. This is the reason why there is no particular trend. The T2LT is a graph done by Roy Spencer to remove the effect of the cooler stratosphere and to better represent the bits of the atmosphere that the models say are warming. This was discussed in a previous page, but Magellan has ignored it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 19, 2009 19:33:25 GMT
Me? Avoid the real issue? You mean the high likelihood that our grandkids are going to be *extremely* pissed off with us that we've greedily stolen all the oil, burnt it up on consumer crap and stupidly inefficient cars, and passed on a world where they can forget about the space programme, the search for the Higgs boson, building fusion reactors, the pursuit of art, history and archaeology, and living in a clean and healthy environment, because they'll be too busy fighting for food, water and a place to live in an over-heated, energy deprived world. Please find me a quote from a climate scientist that says "The science is settled[full stop]" The aphorism was coined by everyone's favorite politician and carbon trader Al Gore when talking to Congress in 2007. "The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere. Gore said that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. And he pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue."
The above is not a direct quote. I'm pretty sure I once put myself through the torture of listening to his submission, and he didn't say "The science is settled[fullstop]". If you want to find a youtube link and tell me the time within the link where he does say it, I'm happy to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 19, 2009 19:47:11 GMT
Steve,
The only problem that I see with the CO2 cooling the stratosphere theory is that it would be a gradual decrease not a sudden and dramatic decrease. Just like the warming theory. The earth warms a tiny little bit every year over a long period of time.
The question I'm asking is why has the stratosphere-ionosphere suddenly and dramatically cooled?
If it's not due to the sun, then what is causing it?
If it is due to the sun, then how much of the past warming was due to poorly understood and modeled sun-earth physics? Thus decreasing the influence of the AGW component of past warming.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 19, 2009 19:52:12 GMT
<<<<<SNIP>>>> The OP gave four subjects that are pillars of CO2 AGW. You have failed to address any of them with current observational or experimental data. Don't feel bad; this is not the first forum I've posed similar challenges. I'm banned at RC, so asking "real" scientists is not possible Isn't it intriguing the largest unknown in many articles, when discussed, are clouds. This is one subject that if well understood would answer a lot. It is not difficult to understand that small changes in cloud cover have huge effects on weather and climate. There are very few actually doing serious research on clouds, and despite all the attacks by AGW prognosticators, probably the one who has the most in recent years is Roy Spencer. His research clearly contradicts the "consensus" and cannot be ignored forever. What I've noticed in every forum is warmers at some point will always end up changing the subject, obfuscate and go off on tangents or give long lectures. Failing that, ad hominem is their next favorite tool of debate. For the most part, this forum is blessed with at least a mostly civil discourse. If you have evidence to present, present it. If not, either concede or don't post. However, please cease with irrelevant gibberish, it is not impressing anyone. So I will ask again: 1) Provide direct evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 levels result in a net increase in atmospheric temperature, or accumulation of heat in Earth's energy budget if you will. 2) Provide direct evidence to support the claim of an enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from increased atmospheric CO2 levels, that being "tipping points" i.e. strong positive water vapor feedback whereby no negative feedback could stabilize. 3) Explain why Hansen et al 2005 which IPCC AR4 is heavily weighted on, has failed. Or if you think it hasn't, give evidence for that. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5727/14314) Give evidence for "heat in the pipeline" (see #3). " Isn't it intriguing the largest unknown in many articles, when discussed, are clouds. This is one subject that if well understood would answer a lot. It is not difficult to understand that small changes in cloud cover have huge effects on weather and climate. There are very few actually doing serious research on clouds, and despite all the attacks by AGW prognosticators, probably the one who has the most in recent years is Roy Spencer. His research clearly contradicts the "consensus" and cannot be ignored forever. " This is my main concern too. The hydrologic cycle is an incredibly powerful 'system' and is only tenuously understood. I have asked professional and research meteorologists detailed questions about clouds and only received vague and contradictory answers. Just ask what is the climate impact of the high clouds of ice-crystals or even the effect of persistent contrails - you will receive answers from positive to negative forcing. There *is* research going on - actual real research not modeling - some showing that clouds can have hugely negative effects. With luck this and the OHC research and results from Argo floats may start to make people move away from the AR4 'logic' of ' all we could think of was CO2'
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 19, 2009 20:05:53 GMT
And I repeat, you said, "it was beyond reasonable dispute that CO2 is warming to the climate." That attitude shuts the door on serious debate because any dispute of YOUR conclusions would be, by your definition, unreasonable. Only when 'the science is settled' can such debate end, and you, sir, have ended it. www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html - El Nino a cause of global warming. This was written by Billy Kessler, Oceanographer Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory / NOAA: "The reason you won't find much information connecting El Niño and global warming is that we (meaning the mainstream scientific community) don't really have too much useful to say about it at this point........So rather than speculate about such a politically-charged subject, we usually keep our mouths shut." That is what happens when people like you decide that your science is beyond reasonable dispute. Speculation is the seed for discovery, and by your politicizing science you have disrupted the process. I have to be a little picky here..... the Pacific is actually PART of the Globe in Global Warming. So having a surge of warm water toward the Americas that results in atmospheric warming is ocean heat content escaping into the atmosphere and from there to space. Thus the El Nino can be seen as a negative feedback to increased Ocean Heat Content. The AGW people by only considering the atmospheric temperatures, try to see this as a positive input to global warming - however - it is actually an escape of ocean heat to space via the atmosphere. El Nino is probably caused by the trade-winds varying in how much they blow the surface waters of the Pacific. The resultant returning 'Kelvin wave' brings warm surface water to the West coast. The trade-winds themselves are generated by the Hadley Cells that are convectively driven by the heat at the surface of the tropics. So there is a complex system of feedbacks. The Ocean and the Atmosphere are ALL part of the Globe. I find it strange that the global temperature is limited in definition by AGW to Atmospheric temperatures. Ocean heat content is far far more important. It is the ocean heat content and its distribution that drives El Nino (hot East Pacific) and La Nina (cold East Pacific). jason-1.jpl.nasa.gov/elnino/20061120.html
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 19, 2009 21:42:44 GMT
Hobgoblins are amazingly difficult creatures to dispatch, since they are sustained on the foolish consistency of little minds (to borrow a phrase from Emerson ).
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 19, 2009 22:00:36 GMT
Magellan, I don't understand what your pictures are! They look like the sort of thing Bob Carter used to put about till he had to admit that "accidentally" the wrong image had been used. I'll show the two that Watts up With That had up last year, neither of which looks a bit like yours: UAH T2LT: RSS: So they both show warming. There's a surprise! Your point about whether models show the right amount of warming in the tropics is nothing to do with CO2, it's to do with whether the models are right. Since up to now it's always been the data that has turned out to be wrong, I suspect Santer is right again. Your point about whether models show the right amount of warming in the tropics is nothing to do with CO2, it's to do with whether the models are right. Since up to now it's always been the data that has turned out to be wrong, I suspect Santer is right again. Changing the rules again in the middle of the game are we? CO2 now has nothing to with warming in the tropics? So it is no longer "global" warming eh? The basic physics is what we're talking about Steve. Apparently Steve you don't realize there is a difference between "global" and "tropics". vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/uahncdc.mtOh, and I'm not sure if you really care about had bad climate "science" had to stoop for Santer et al 2008 to get published, but that is what happens when politics gets entangled in the scientific method. Read again, very slowly: www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.pdfTropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere. For more see Gavin and the Big Red Dog www.climateaudit.org/?p=4731Of course you could go to RealClimate for indoctrination maintenance, but personally I prefer open and honest discussion in lieu of censorship of dissenting views when it makes the Team look bad
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2009 10:26:51 GMT
Steve, The only problem that I see with the CO2 cooling the stratosphere theory is that it would be a gradual decrease not a sudden and dramatic decrease. Just like the warming theory. The earth warms a tiny little bit every year over a long period of time. The question I'm asking is why has the stratosphere-ionosphere suddenly and dramatically cooled? If it's not due to the sun, then what is causing it? If it is due to the sun, then how much of the past warming was due to poorly understood and modeled sun-earth physics? Thus decreasing the influence of the AGW component of past warming. It is a gradual cooling. Increasing CO2 causes steady tropospheric warming and steady stratospheric cooling (according to model predictions). The stratospheric cooling is further enhanced by the fact that a cooler stratosphere results in reduced ozone, and reduced ozone results in reduced UV absorption (as well as all the other possible effects on ozone such as CFCs). It just so happens that when you put them together it results in the "mid-troposphere" product from UAH having no perceptable trend.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2009 10:52:19 GMT
And I repeat, you said, "it was beyond reasonable dispute that CO2 is warming to the climate." That attitude shuts the door on serious debate because any dispute of YOUR conclusions would be, by your definition, unreasonable. Only when 'the science is settled' can such debate end, and you, sir, have ended it. www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html - El Nino a cause of global warming. This was written by Billy Kessler, Oceanographer Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory / NOAA: "The reason you won't find much information connecting El Niño and global warming is that we (meaning the mainstream scientific community) don't really have too much useful to say about it at this point........So rather than speculate about such a politically-charged subject, we usually keep our mouths shut." That is what happens when people like you decide that your science is beyond reasonable dispute. Speculation is the seed for discovery, and by your politicizing science you have disrupted the process. I have to be a little picky here..... the Pacific is actually PART of the Globe in Global Warming. So having a surge of warm water toward the Americas that results in atmospheric warming is ocean heat content escaping into the atmosphere and from there to space. Thus the El Nino can be seen as a negative feedback to increased Ocean Heat Content. The AGW people by only considering the atmospheric temperatures, try to see this as a positive input to global warming - however - it is actually an escape of ocean heat to space via the atmosphere. El Nino is probably caused by the trade-winds varying in how much they blow the surface waters of the Pacific. The resultant returning 'Kelvin wave' brings warm surface water to the West coast. The trade-winds themselves are generated by the Hadley Cells that are convectively driven by the heat at the surface of the tropics. So there is a complex system of feedbacks. The Ocean and the Atmosphere are ALL part of the Globe. I find it strange that the global temperature is limited in definition by AGW to Atmospheric temperatures. Ocean heat content is far far more important. It is the ocean heat content and its distribution that drives El Nino (hot East Pacific) and La Nina (cold East Pacific). jason-1.jpl.nasa.gov/elnino/20061120.html I'll be a bit picky too if I may. While the El Nino in 1998 produced a large and temporary warming of the atmosphere, indicating it was likely due to heat coming out of the ocean, the effect on ocean heat content data is imperceptable. Due to the heat capacity of the ocean, the increase in heat content of the ocean since 1998 would be enough to warm the atmosphere 7C. The atmosphere temperature as a metric is useful because a) we live in the atmosphere, b) records of the atmosphere go back further c) observations of the atmosphere are easier to do and probably more accurate, d) (minor point) the "greenhouse effect" is an atmospheric phenomenon. But, it is not the only metric - the IPCC report considers energy content of atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere (amount of ice) and lithosphere (heat in rocks). The first two are by far the most significant, and ocean heat content data will hopefully soon be operational (ie. coming out more regularly) due to the efforts of climate scientists. So the argument which I assume Kessler is referring to is maybe about whether the various cycles have side effects that *do* change the net energy balance of the earth. eg. if La Niña were to increase cloud cover it would cool the atmosphere both by reflecting away more sunlight *and* by absorbing more energy into the ocean. Keeping one's mouth shut is different, I would say, from stopping research and/or publishing papers - which I'm sure is not affected.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2009 11:03:26 GMT
Magellan, I don't understand what your pictures are! They look like the sort of thing Bob Carter used to put about till he had to admit that "accidentally" the wrong image had been used. I'll show the two that Watts up With That had up last year, neither of which looks a bit like yours: UAH T2LT: RSS: So they both show warming. There's a surprise! Your point about whether models show the right amount of warming in the tropics is nothing to do with CO2, it's to do with whether the models are right. Since up to now it's always been the data that has turned out to be wrong, I suspect Santer is right again. Your point about whether models show the right amount of warming in the tropics is nothing to do with CO2, it's to do with whether the models are right. Since up to now it's always been the data that has turned out to be wrong, I suspect Santer is right again. Changing the rules again in the middle of the game are we? CO2 now has nothing to with warming in the tropics? So it is no longer "global" warming eh? The basic physics is what we're talking about Steve. Magellan, you wanted evidence of how CO2 could warm the climate which I showed you, so it is you who is changing the rules. The predictions of *additional* warming in the tropics has nothing to do with CO2. The models would give a similar signature for additional warming of other sources including solar or even subsequent to just artificially bumping up the temperature with a code modification.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 20, 2009 12:16:09 GMT
I have to be a little picky here..... the Pacific is actually PART of the Globe in Global Warming. So having a surge of warm water toward the Americas that results in atmospheric warming is ocean heat content escaping into the atmosphere and from there to space. Thus the El Nino can be seen as a negative feedback to increased Ocean Heat Content. The AGW people by only considering the atmospheric temperatures, try to see this as a positive input to global warming - however - it is actually an escape of ocean heat to space via the atmosphere. El Nino is probably caused by the trade-winds varying in how much they blow the surface waters of the Pacific. The resultant returning 'Kelvin wave' brings warm surface water to the West coast. The trade-winds themselves are generated by the Hadley Cells that are convectively driven by the heat at the surface of the tropics. So there is a complex system of feedbacks. The Ocean and the Atmosphere are ALL part of the Globe. I find it strange that the global temperature is limited in definition by AGW to Atmospheric temperatures. Ocean heat content is far far more important. It is the ocean heat content and its distribution that drives El Nino (hot East Pacific) and La Nina (cold East Pacific). jason-1.jpl.nasa.gov/elnino/20061120.html I'll be a bit picky too if I may. While the El Nino in 1998 produced a large and temporary warming of the atmosphere, indicating it was likely due to heat coming out of the ocean, the effect on ocean heat content data is imperceptable. Due to the heat capacity of the ocean, the increase in heat content of the ocean since 1998 would be enough to warm the atmosphere 7C. The atmosphere temperature as a metric is useful because a) we live in the atmosphere, b) records of the atmosphere go back further c) observations of the atmosphere are easier to do and probably more accurate, d) (minor point) the "greenhouse effect" is an atmospheric phenomenon. But, it is not the only metric - the IPCC report considers energy content of atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere (amount of ice) and lithosphere (heat in rocks). The first two are by far the most significant, and ocean heat content data will hopefully soon be operational (ie. coming out more regularly) due to the efforts of climate scientists. So the argument which I assume Kessler is referring to is maybe about whether the various cycles have side effects that *do* change the net energy balance of the earth. eg. if La Niña were to increase cloud cover it would cool the atmosphere both by reflecting away more sunlight *and* by absorbing more energy into the ocean. Keeping one's mouth shut is different, I would say, from stopping research and/or publishing papers - which I'm sure is not affected. I believe you missed my point. We get repeated references - from both sides of the debate - that 'it was an El Nino year' or 'La Nina is not reloading', 'its the effect of the negative/positive PDO on climate', etc etc. This is talking as if the ocean heat and its (re)distribution is an external event but the ocean heat is the main driver for climate. The oceans are also rather obviously the main source and sink of the hyrdologic cycle which is affected by the ocean heat and SST.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2009 16:39:20 GMT
Your point about whether models show the right amount of warming in the tropics is nothing to do with CO2, it's to do with whether the models are right. Since up to now it's always been the data that has turned out to be wrong, I suspect Santer is right again. Changing the rules again in the middle of the game are we? CO2 now has nothing to with warming in the tropics? So it is no longer "global" warming eh? The basic physics is what we're talking about Steve. Magellan, you wanted evidence of how CO2 could warm the climate which I showed you, so it is you who is changing the rules. The predictions of *additional* warming in the tropics has nothing to do with CO2. The models would give a similar signature for additional warming of other sources including solar or even subsequent to just artificially bumping up the temperature with a code modification. As predicted, you went off looking for the latest AGW scripted response. Sorry Steve, it is written in stone concerning the tropical troposphere. Post your reference stating "the models would give a similar signature for additional warming......". Come on Steve, cough it up. I'm waiting.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2009 17:39:12 GMT
Magellan, you wanted evidence of how CO2 could warm the climate which I showed you, so it is you who is changing the rules. The predictions of *additional* warming in the tropics has nothing to do with CO2. The models would give a similar signature for additional warming of other sources including solar or even subsequent to just artificially bumping up the temperature with a code modification. As predicted, you went off looking for the latest AGW scripted response. Sorry Steve, it is written in stone concerning the tropical troposphere. Post your reference stating "the models would give a similar signature for additional warming......". Come on Steve, cough it up. I'm waiting. Why is it a "scripted" response? Surely you are inventing a controversy out of nothing. I thought it was "common sense" that warming at the surface increased evapo-transpiration and convection resulting in more warming aloft. Proper references are hard to find because most of the published references are likely to be old, and all the current fuss is about the warming due to CO2. The best accessible reference is probably from your favourite bloke: www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug02/Santer.htmlImage: www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug02/gifs/Santer4.jpgwhich shows that for both solar and CO2 warming, the models show less warming at the surface than in the mid-troposphere, whereas in the stratosphere, the increased solar warms the stratosphere whereas the increased CO2 cools the stratosphere. In other words, whether or not the models are right about the different trend says nothing about CO2 in particular, and says more about the response of the models to warming in general. By including the above link I don't mean to open a discussion about Santer showing that observations are not out of line with the models any more.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2009 23:47:52 GMT
As predicted, you went off looking for the latest AGW scripted response. Sorry Steve, it is written in stone concerning the tropical troposphere. Post your reference stating "the models would give a similar signature for additional warming......". Come on Steve, cough it up. I'm waiting. Why is it a "scripted" response? Surely you are inventing a controversy out of nothing. I thought it was "common sense" that warming at the surface increased evapo-transpiration and convection resulting in more warming aloft. Proper references are hard to find because most of the published references are likely to be old, and all the current fuss is about the warming due to CO2. The best accessible reference is probably from your favourite bloke: www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug02/Santer.htmlImage: www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug02/gifs/Santer4.jpgwhich shows that for both solar and CO2 warming, the models show less warming at the surface than in the mid-troposphere, whereas in the stratosphere, the increased solar warms the stratosphere whereas the increased CO2 cools the stratosphere. In other words, whether or not the models are right about the different trend says nothing about CO2 in particular, and says more about the response of the models to warming in general. By including the above link I don't mean to open a discussion about Santer showing that observations are not out of line with the models any more. Obfuscation.....again.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 21, 2009 16:48:02 GMT
As predicted, you went off looking for the latest AGW scripted response. Sorry Steve, it is written in stone concerning the tropical troposphere. Post your reference stating "the models would give a similar signature for additional warming......". Come on Steve, cough it up. I'm waiting. Why is it a "scripted" response? Surely you are inventing a controversy out of nothing. I thought it was "common sense" that warming at the surface increased evapo-transpiration and convection resulting in more warming aloft. Proper references are hard to find because most of the published references are likely to be old, and all the current fuss is about the warming due to CO2. The best accessible reference is probably from your favourite bloke: www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug02/Santer.htmlImage: www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug02/gifs/Santer4.jpgwhich shows that for both solar and CO2 warming, the models show less warming at the surface than in the mid-troposphere, whereas in the stratosphere, the increased solar warms the stratosphere whereas the increased CO2 cools the stratosphere. In other words, whether or not the models are right about the different trend says nothing about CO2 in particular, and says more about the response of the models to warming in general. By including the above link I don't mean to open a discussion about Santer showing that observations are not out of line with the models any more. Quite simply. . . .I believe. . . .your comments are correct if and only if you rate CO2 as an important greenhouse gas. Ultimately the conclusion that increased solar radiation would raise temperatures in the upper atmosphere is because you believe that is where the heat is getting trapped. If you believe that the water cycle is the dominant climate force and continues to be in face of increased solar warming; then you would conclude that the warming would occur very close to the surface. . . .where all evidence suggests it has. The mid atmosphere warming predicted by CO2 models would produce the same result no matter the source of heat. Thus your argument begs the question.
|
|