What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

There are people who don't like very much Mr. Hansen...

Fire James Hansen - NASA Climate Chief
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=53080958739

[Guillermo]

Thomas,
I post again:

The resulting picture that emerges is of an IN-sensitive climate system, dominated by negative feedback. And it appears that the reason why most climate models are instead VERY sensitive is due to the illusion of a sensitive climate system that can arise when one is not careful about the physical interpretation of how clouds operate in terms of cause and effect (forcing and feedback)."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...odel-evidence/

Cheers

[Boston]

bntti
Ild say we know that co2 is a green house gas not because it was debated to death
but because its been long ago mathematical and experimentally proven to be so

its simple physics that its more transparent to visible light than it is to the far infrared ( heat )
so it lets the sunshine in which is of a higher wave length and doesnt let the heat energy ( radiant heat ) back out ( lower wavelength )
( why, the size and shape of the molecule, duh )
simple greenhouse effect
basic physics
not much argument there
by the same experimental means it can be shown to be a much more effective green house gas than water vapor which is one reason it is said to be more relevant than water vapor as a green house gas

G just doesnt agree with that assessment and Im not going to bother with it at the moment cause I think I got a good logic path going and Im hoping to stick with it as best I can


ok so Billy is the other guy who took a statistics class
one being myself ( thanks for throwing a wrench into my logic path B with the obvious, frankly, I got no clue who's side you are batting for B )

I remember the bit about causation not necessarily being relevant to a relationship but since all sides agree that there is concerning the issue at hand I was hoping to forgo that part as we just agreed there is a correlation regardless of who comes first


there is a calculation for determining if a correlation is based on causation that I was hoping to avoid ( Ill leave it up to you B since you seem to remember that part of statistics class better than I do )
frankly Id need to look it up to compliment my point about a correlation in this case being synonymous with a relation as we both already know it is
so Im not going to
and we all know we could go off for a few pages on it and basically come back to the same place we are now
which is
about to solve for the correlation coefficient
which will also determine the relative causality of one event based on another

anyone want to take a guess at how closely temp and co2 are related

[Boston]

ok I just started the graph that I would use to figure that out with and I realized that the only fair way to do this is to first agree on three graphs to use in the calculation

so
are you guys comfy with my using one of the three I last presented
in post 2119
several are from detractors web sites and one was All Gore's
although were he got it Im not sure

nother thought I had B is that if you have the background in statistics that I think you do that you help me agree on a few things about calculating the coefficient
for instance the amplitude of the correlation is less relevant than the frequency
makes the hole thing so much easier to figure out

[bntii]

Guillermo- thanks for the lead.

I have not looked into Dr. Spencer much since Jimbo & I were going over some of his work on tropical cloud formations way back when.

I will take a look..

Boston- Excellent video. Well worth a look by all camps as it provides a very nice historical backdrop for the whole debate.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

bntti
Ild say we know that co2 is a green house gas not because it was debated to death
but because its been long ago mathematical and experimentally proven to be so

Nobody has ever denied that it is so. The distinction to be debated is the relative importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Without a positive feedback coupling between CO2 and water vapor, the answer to this question is unequivocally "No, CO2 IS NOT an important greenhouse gas, as it is responsible for a mere couple of percent of the planet's total atmospheric greenhouse warming." Without this coupling, there can be no scary warming scenario involving small changes in atmospheric CO2.

Now if there really IS a positive feedback coupling between CO2 and water vapor, then the answer to the question is "Yes, as it is responsible for about 25% of the total greenhouse effect." Corollary to this, we could add that the earth's CO2/water vapor cycle is therefore an extremely rare example of an unstable equilibrium in the natural world.

This is really the last frontier of this debate, and the most current data on this does not support the 'AGW via CO2' hypothesis.

Jimbo

[Boston]

lets try to set aside what we dont agree on and focus on what we can agree on and see what we come up with

can we agree that based on physics the properties of the co2 molecule make it a stronger green house gas than h2o

given that one molecule is more transparent to visible light than the other and also more reflective of the far infrared area of the spectrum

for the moment lets ignore the relationship between the two since we dont agree on it but like co2 and temp lets say there is one
is that a fair enough place to begin

[Boston]

not trying to beat t dead horse but this article is pretty thorough and in the end is the accepted relationship between co2 and h2o
the results are noted in each paper cited and when taken as a hole represent a conclusion based on physics
for instance
we know the chemical make up of the atmosphere
we know the concentrations of various gasses
the physical properties of each gas is known when subjected to various forms of radiation
the radiative forcing can then be calculated
the results can be laboratory recreated and verified
the results corroborated by independently duplicating the experiments with the researchers noted in the studies cited
the studies are listed with all studies being cited as having no competing interests

Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.

How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in empirical studies such as Soden 2001 which observed the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study (Santer 2007), otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels. Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.

Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Basic theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

[Guillermo]

My dear Boston,
Would you please read through Roy Spencer's site and then tell us what do you think about what there is said?

Here again the link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Begin by the 'Home/Blog' section.

Thanks in advance.

[bntii]

Balance- how rare is that in this issue:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20090211.html

It's just a nice short summary on the effect of the science on the current debate.

[bntii]

B- have you dropped the "Consensus" ball?
I think it's interesting to note that the scientific consensus on this issue was established 30 years ago and is far stronger with each passing day.


Little joke for you:

A duck a priest and a climate scientist walk into a bar.

Bartender asks the duck:
"so what do you think about climate change?"

Duck:
"it's a bunch of bunk"

Bartender:
"I thought so"

[Boston]

as always Ill first go look up a bio on him
and check the credibility and impartiality of his work

the first thing thats apparent is that a certain percentage of people no mater how carefully chosen will play a system designed to ensure both quality and honesty for there own personal gain

the first question that needs to be considered is "what is tenure" when reading material that is so far off base, from a professor no less is understanding the system that protects academics from censure other than consistent rejection by a peer review panel
which is what has happened to MR Spencer

Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole might favor "safe" lines of inquiry. Tenure makes original ideas more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions about which they are most passionate, and to report their honest conclusions.

what tenure unfortunately also allows for is a person in a protected position to use that position for personal gain which it seams obvious is what R Spencer is engaging in when he plays the system to the degree he has.
What I mean by playing the system can be found in the following blatantly false statements that placated the oil and gas industry which provided the funding for entities that would publish his work when peer reviewed scientific publishers wouldn’t

IE
pay him for writing articles refuting and confusing the consensus view that has been and still is growing since the 1950’s

FACTSHEET: ROY W. SPENCER
DETAILS

Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama
Science Roundtable Member, Tech Central Station. Scientific Advisor, Interfaith Stewardship Council. 

Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. TCS bio: http://www.techcentralstation.com/020604C.html
KEY QUOTES
26 February, 2007
"The media is, almost by definition, most interested in extreme views on the issue, so reporting seldom reveals that broad scientific uncertainty still exists."
Source: New York Post 2/26/07

17 April, 2006
"We are not saying that we don't believe that there can be significant global warming. As John [Christy] said, if you add CO2, something has to change. But things are changing all the time anyway. The big question is: So what? How much is it going to change, compared to other things? And what can you do about it?"
Source: George Marshall Institute Roundtable April 2006

19 April, 2007
"We see something change in our climate and we blame ourselves. ... I don't think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the (climate) models, we know it happens, but we don't know for sure how it happens."
Source: The Huntsville Times, April 19, 2007

2 May, 2007
"Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it's warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change." 
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

KEY DEEDS
8 March, 2007
Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)

25 July, 2006
Co-author of Interfaith Stewardship Alliance report critical of the Evangelical Climate Initiative's Call To Action urging a swift response to global warming. The ISA letter argues that "the most prudent response is not to try (almost certainly unsuccessfully and at enormous cost) to prevent or reduce whatever slight warming might really occur." They suggest adaptation instead.
Source: Interfaith Stewarship Alliance website (2007)

2 May, 2007
Appeared in Glenn Beck's May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

ORGANIZATIONS
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Station Bio - Spencer

Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute website 4/04

George C. Marshall Institute
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)

Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
Source: Interfaith Stewardship Alliance "Call to Faith"

SOURCES
Heartland Institute website 4/04
http://www.heartland.org

Heartland Institute website 4/04
http://www.heartland.org

Tech Central Station Bio - Spencer
http://www.techcentralstation.com/bi...32;
Tech Central Station Bio - Spencer
http://www.techcentralstation.com/bi...#8232;Marshall Institute Website (2006)
Christy and Spencer authored a report using "satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface."
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

Marshall Institute Website (2006)
Christy and Spencer authored a report using "satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface."
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

Interfaith Stewardship Alliance "Call to Faith"
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org...232;Interfaith Stewardship Alliance "Call to Faith"
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org...232;
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...232;Interfaith Stewarship Alliance website (2007)
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org...232;
New York Post 2/26/07
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007...;
George Marshall Institute Roundtable April 2006
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf

The Huntsville Times, April 19, 2007
"Scientist: Warming Not Caused by Humans," by Wendy Reeves. The Huntsville Times, 4/19/07.
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletim...232;
CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/beck.climateoffear/


The first thing I noticed in the hours it took to read his websites endless diatribe is that he spends most of his time refuting work that was peer reviewed and published and complaining that his work was peer reviewed and rejected, ( I would love to read all his rejection letters but he didn’t quote any findings of the reviews. Kinda makes me wonder about the credulity of what he is trying to say from the word go.) The next thing I notice is that he is refuting an area of science that he claims is less well understood while ignoring to debate an area that is very closely related and more clearly understood and grounded in reams of scientific literature; water vapor feed back. The next thing that stands out is his failure to mention the significance of properly defining water vapor; which is a gas and therefore embodies its own particular characteristics as such vs cloud structures which are made up of water droplets; not a gas and have entirely different characteristics. seems that in doing so and by taking the argument that failed within the scientific community to the public he is deliberately confusing an issue otherwise well understood within the scientific community

In conclusion he was exactly as I suspected when I read his bio, embittered and corrupted by rejection to the point of endless complaints about his mediocre standing in a community that he once aspired to and now clearly holds in contempt.

[Boston]

most definitely not B

the more I look into it
the more obvious it becomes that the consensus view is stronger than ever
and the dissenting view based on agnotism in an effort to delay regulation that would cost industry its mind bending profits by forcing it to clean up its act a little

seems that greed makes the world go round rather than logic

B

[dimitarp]

visit:
http://www.partenovcfd.com

[Boston]

nice
but Im hopeing to stick to the relevant difference of the two foms of the same mater in reflecting specific wavelengths

water vapor is reasonable transparent to solar radiation yet reflect radiant heat
water droplets have a much higher degree of reflection and release latent heat when they form in the atmosphere creating a blanket of heat energy that had previously been locked up in the process of evaporation

the addition of co2 into the atmosphere raises the temp allowing more vapor to be held by the atmosphere before the formation of droplets occurs

that means since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas that temp increases even more ( forcing ) and the system as a hole enables less cloud formation and so less reflection
the end result is that the system seeks a new equilibrium higher than what is expected by merely calculating the change in one parameter