|
Post by hiddigeigei on May 22, 2009 17:09:16 GMT
But crucially it's less than the amount it takes to cause it to rise. 1C warming causes additional 0.5C warming from water vapor The additional 0.5C warming from water vapor causes an additional 0.25C warming from water vapor. The additional 0.25C warming from water vapor causes an additional 0.125C warming from water vapor. You can see it's getting smaller. It won't go to infinity as you propose (despite telling me last post that I was the only one talking about infinity) Maybe I’m missing something here, but how does water vapor know the additional one degree temperature increase came from its own innitial one degree increase and not the same source as the original increase?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 22, 2009 22:10:20 GMT
There's little else to debunk. The modelers flat out admit they don't know how the actual systems work or what the actual affects are for each proposed feedback. Exactly! The word from the modelers these days is to hold back on the doomsday rhetoric hoping upon hope that the excesses of the Al Gore sycophants don't forever relegate climate science to the science junkpile that includes astrology, alchemy, and phrenology.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 22, 2009 23:18:11 GMT
It's notable that many "debunks" of agw rely on debunking the simplified explanations such as "the greenhouse effect is not the same as a greenhouse" and "if the water vapour feedback is positive, how come we've not had a runaway effect". There's little else to debunk. The modelers flat out admit they don't know how the actual systems work or what the actual affects are for each proposed feedback. We "deniers" as we're called are horribly limited by the fact that the AGW camp doesn't actually have any evidence. The only REAL evidence all points to low or negative feedbacks, little to no sensitivity to CO2 in general and the climate operating in radically different ways than the modelers suggest. I just totally disagree. The modellers don't admit they don't know how the actual systems work or what the actual effects are. We do have evidence that rising co2 causes warming. Strong evidence. The evidence points to positive feedbacks, not negative.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 23, 2009 0:05:34 GMT
There's little else to debunk. The modelers flat out admit they don't know how the actual systems work or what the actual affects are for each proposed feedback. We "deniers" as we're called are horribly limited by the fact that the AGW camp doesn't actually have any evidence. The only REAL evidence all points to low or negative feedbacks, little to no sensitivity to CO2 in general and the climate operating in radically different ways than the modelers suggest. I just totally disagree. The modellers don't admit they don't know how the actual systems work or what the actual effects are. We do have evidence that rising co2 causes warming. Strong evidence. The evidence points to positive feedbacks, not negative. Well that's nice that you stand up for what you believe in and disagree...doesn't change the reality. That's really what this is all about...pesky reality. Reality's just bashing you warmaholics over the head left and right. The atmosphere won't cool in the right places, it won't warm in the right places...hell, it won't warm at all for you lately. The reality is that the warming rate is significantly lower than any number you've suggested INCLUDING the raw physics of CO2 absorption. You just need to deal with the fact that models of poorly understood processes just aren't something to be trusted...especially when they don't fit with reality.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 23, 2009 0:08:22 GMT
But crucially it's less than the amount it takes to cause it to rise. 1C warming causes additional 0.5C warming from water vapor The additional 0.5C warming from water vapor causes an additional 0.25C warming from water vapor. The additional 0.25C warming from water vapor causes an additional 0.125C warming from water vapor. You can see it's getting smaller. It won't go to infinity as you propose (despite telling me last post that I was the only one talking about infinity) Maybe I’m missing something here, but how does water vapor know the additional one degree temperature increase came from its own innitial one degree increase and not the same source as the original increase? As an example: TempIncrease = Solar Warming + Warming from water vapor increase Because the water vapor increase is proportional to the total temperature increase: TempIncrease = Solar Warming + TempIncrease * N If N is 0.5, meaning each 1C rise in temperature causes water vapor to rise and cause an additional 0.5C then: TempIncrease = Solar Warming + TempIncrease * 0.5 TempIncrease = 2 x Solar Warming That "2 x" is the effect of the positive feedback. It causes temperature to rise twice as much for each forcing than if it didn't exist. For example a 3wm-2 increase in solar otuput would cause twice as much warming than if that multiplier (the feedback) didn't exist. This is the same result as working it out iteratively: TempIncrease(n) = Solar Warming + TempIncrease(n-1) * 0.5 TempIncrease(0) = 0 Solar Warming = 1C TempIncrease(1) = 1C TempIncrease(2) = 1.5C TempIncrease(3) = 1.75C TempIncrease(4) = 1.875C ...converges on 2C If N was less than 0, ie N = -0.5 then that means the increase in water vapor from 1C warming caused 0.5C cooling. Then: TempIncrease = Solar Warming + TempIncrease * -0.5 TempIncrease = 0.66 x Solar Warming So a negative feedback dampens the warming. Instead of 3wm-2 increase in solar output causing say 1C rise in temperaure it now only causes 0.66C with this feedback in place. TempIncrease(n) = Solar Warming + TempIncrease(n-1) * -0.5 TempIncrease(0) = 0 Solar Warming = 1C TempIncrease(1) = 1C TempIncrease(2) = 0.5C TempIncrease(3) = 0.75C TempIncrease(4) = 0.625C ...converges on 0.66C The temperature only runs away to infinity if N >= 1 (in fact the equation breaks if N > 1), but noone is proposing feedbacks this strong: TempIncrease(n) = Solar Warming + TempIncrease(n-1) * 1.5 TempIncrease(0) = 0 Solar Warming = 1C TempIncrease(1) = 1C TempIncrease(2) = 2.5C TempIncrease(3) = 4.75C TempIncrease(4) = 8.125C ...no stable temperature...runaway to infinity
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 23, 2009 0:09:30 GMT
I just totally disagree. The modellers don't admit they don't know how the actual systems work or what the actual effects are. We do have evidence that rising co2 causes warming. Strong evidence. The evidence points to positive feedbacks, not negative. Well that's nice that you stand up for what you believe in and disagree...doesn't change the reality. That's really what this is all about...pesky reality. Reality's just bashing you warmaholics over the head left and right. The atmosphere won't cool in the right places, it won't warm in the right places...hell, it won't warm at all for you lately. The reality is that the warming rate is significantly lower than any number you've suggested INCLUDING the raw physics of CO2 absorption. You just need to deal with the fact that models of poorly understood processes just aren't something to be trusted...especially when they don't fit with reality. This has been discussed in various places. The evidence is in favor of the warming continuing, not it having stopped.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2009 1:33:35 GMT
The evidence is in favor of the warming continuing, not it having stopped. What evidence are you talking about? Theories?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 23, 2009 3:13:57 GMT
The evidence is in favor of the warming continuing, not it having stopped. What evidence are you talking about? Theories? You asked for evidence, so will receive more lectures. Maybe you should be using reverse psychology.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 24, 2009 20:27:18 GMT
What evidence are you talking about? Theories? You asked for evidence, so will receive more lectures. Maybe you should be using reverse psychology. Obviously he has no evidence, just blowing hot air as usual.
|
|
|
Post by enough on May 25, 2009 4:45:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 25, 2009 12:21:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 25, 2009 14:46:15 GMT
This is a global heat budget issue. The OHC will only remain flat if the global heat budget is in balance.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 25, 2009 16:48:43 GMT
This is a global heat budget issue. The OHC will only remain flat if the global heat budget is in balance. On the long term
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on May 25, 2009 17:34:20 GMT
Julianb: excellent article/referral. Thank you. Alas and again, heat is not temperature - a quick study of the thermosphere indicates that - and Hilbert, the solar system, including Mars surface has been cooling over the past 8 years - approx. 13 years ago planetary images increased in luminosity about 5x - this occurred over say 5 years - since that time, energy content has diminished.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 25, 2009 18:41:40 GMT
I thought that the southern ice cap on Mars was shrinking, but I'm a couple of years out of date on it.
|
|