What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

On another forum I've found a pair of posts which explains with the finest logic, why a positive feedback with water vapor is simply impossible, using data taken directly from the IPCC AR4 as well as everyday observations of weather.

Knut: Please read these 2 posts carefully; all your questions are answered!

I'll quote it unabridged:

Michael:
January 5th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

"There are two ways of supporting or disproving theories. The first is by experimental observation, the second is by theoretical analysis. The first has been discussed endlessly in relation to AGW on this site and others. Let me offer an attempt at the second approach.

As a preamble however I would like to point out that the study of the absorption of radiant energy by matter is NOT climatology, it is spectroscopy. In fact most of the science behind climatology is derived from other disciplines thus it is not justifiable to take the view that only input from climatologists is relevant. In my case, I have spent the last 33 years very successfully carrying out research for a major spectroscopy company.

Having become interested in the AGW issue I tried to derive the direct effect of CO2 from first principles. What I found was that the relationship between CO2 concentration and retained energy was logarithmic and that each doubling of CO2 would retain about an additional 3.5 watts/sq meter. Consulting the literature I find that the logarithmic relationship is widely established, I simply re-derived an already known relationship. As to the magnitude, the 4th (ie: latest) IPCC report states that the increase in CO2 concentration from 280 to 390 ppm has increased retained energy by 1.77 watts/sq meter. 280 to 390 ppm represents 0.48 doublings so the IPCC number is 1.77/0.48 or 3.7 watts/sq meter. Pretty reasonable agreement. That means the increase from 390 to 560 ppm - a further 0.52 doublings will increase retained energy by 1.9 watts/sq meter. Using Stefan’s law relating temperature with energy radiated by a black body (known and proven for more than a century) an additional 1.9 watts/sq meter will increase the temperature of earth’s surface by about 0.34 degrees C. That’s a long way from the claimed 3+ degrees C - how come? The claimed answer is positive feedback from water vapour. My immediate thought on hearing this was to note that every single naturally stable system I can think of exhibits net negative feedback so to suggest that climate (which is clearly stable) exhibits strong positive feedback makes me very suspicious, however suspicion is not evidence so lets look at the numbers.

To get 3 degrees temperature rise requires an additional 16.5 watts/sq meter (again from Stefan’s law). If 1.9 comes from CO2, the remainder, 14.6 must come from water vapour. That would mean the positive feedback co-efficient was 14.6/16.5 or 0.88 (where 1 = runaway) WOW. Looking up the relationship between temperature and water vapour pressure in the CRC handbook I find that a 3 degree temperature increase results in approximately a 30% increase in water vapour concentration (at constant relative humidity). The logarithmic relationship applies to all greenhouse gases including water thus a 30% increase is 0.38 doublings implying that each doubling of water vapour contributes an additional 14.6/.38 watts or 38 watts/sq meter. To put this in perspective, water vapour at present only contributes 84 watts/sq meter in total. A sensitivity as large as this raises many extremely serious paradoxes and is, I believe absolutely impossible. This post is already too long for me to enumerate these but if anyone is interested I am more than willing to outline some of the paradoxes in a subsequent posting.

The models making this prediction also predict that the impact of this water vapour feedback mechanism is a hot spot in the tropics at an altitude of about 8 km. According to the models, if the positive feedback effect of water is true then this region should be warming at least 2 times as fast as the surface. However again when I read the literature I find that 1000’s of balloon measurements and the satellite measurements all fail to find such a hot spot- and in fact this region is warming significantly less than the surface. The prediction is not supported experimentally suggesting the original hypothesis is false.

The above only considers positive feedback from water vapour but in fact water vapour also generates very powerful negative feedback. Atmospheric water vapour gives rise to clouds and they cause cooling because they reflect incoming energy from the sun back into space. For Earth the albedo is dominated by clouds. At present it is about 0.3 which means that 30% of the incoming energy from the sun is reflected back into space (about 100 watts/sq meter- which is greater in magnitude but opposite in sign to the greenhouse impact of water vapour 84 watts/sq meter). So to consider one without the other is biased thinking.

What is the relationship between water vapour concentration and cloud levels? I admit I don’t know for sure but I suspect it is much closer to linear than logarithmic. If there are two opposite feedback mechanisms of similar magnitude, one varying logarithmically with concentration and the other linearly, linear will dominate as the concentration rises. This again suggests feedback from water vapour is more likely to be negative than positive. If so, the direct 0.34 degree rise from an increase of CO2 to 560 ppm would be reduced not increased by the impact of water vapour.

There is also experimental evidence easily observable by any lay person that the feedback from water vapour is negative. Again, I am happy to outline this in a follow up post if there is interest."


Michael:
January 6th, 2009 at 7:27 am

"In my previous post I said I would outline evidence easily experienced by a lay person suggesting that water exerts a negative feedback effect. Here it is.

The IPCC model is based on massive positive feedback in our climate system yet every stable natural system that I can think of exhibits strong negative feedback around the equilibrium point. Negative feedback is the opposite of positive feedback. It acts to oppose any disturbance acting on a system and seeks to maintain the current equilibrium. In short it is a stabilising factor whereas positive feedback is a destabilising factor. Long term stability of any system almost guarantees that there is strong negative or stabilising feedback in operation. The climate, while showing periodic variations, has been stable enough for life to form and flourish for millions of years despite significant changes in forcings over the millennia and this makes it virtually certain that strong negative feedback is in operation. Any analysis purporting to show otherwise should be viewed with considerable circumspection. It suggests a strong likelihood that the model is either incomplete or seriously flawed.

We have all experienced the very significant temperature difference between a clear night and a cloudy night in winter. Clear nights are much colder than cloudy nights. Clouds act in exactly the same way as greenhouse gasses, by trapping energy radiated from the surface and returning it to the surface instead of allowing it to radiate out to space. What our senses are showing us is that greenhouse effects are not just long time constant, global issues. They are easily discerned in our local environment over timescales as short as an hour or two.

Now consider the following scenario. We know the earth rotates about an axis tilted about 23 degrees relative to the sun, which is what gives us the seasons and what sets the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. Imagine a location on the tropic of Capricorn (23 degrees south) - say Mackay in Queensland. In summer the sun is directly overhead - average solar input of around 310 watts/sq meter. In winter the sun is at maximum elevation 45 degrees - average solar input of around 220 watts/sq meter. That is a difference summer to winter of about 90 watts/sq meter which, if there was neither positive nor negative feedback, would give a temperature difference summer to winter of about 16 degrees (from Stefan’s law). The positive feedback suggested by the IPCC model, would act on this forcing in exactly the same way as the claimed forcing from CO2 rise and would inflate the 16 degrees to about 90 degrees C, extinguishing all life in Mackay. Yet the summer winter temperature difference in Mackay is only about 6 degrees. That is not only far less than IPCC’s 90 degrees but is far less even than the 16 degrees predicted in the absence of any feedback at all. How is that possible?

Maybe the thermal mass of the environment averages out much of the summer winter difference? Unlikely, considering the significant temperature change between day and night. If the temperature can change significantly in a few hours it could certainly change profoundly over 6 months. Also, if the above were the reason one would also expect to see it similarly averaged out in places like Melbourne, yet anyone living there can testify first hand that such is not the case, the summer/winter variation is greater than at Mackay.

What does stand out at Mackay relative to Melbourne is that the humidity is much higher in summer than it is in winter. Higher humidity means more water vapour content in the air. According to the IPCC model, this should translate to even more greenhouse heat retention and thus even higher temperatures. Now remember our experiences with cloudy versus clear nights, the effect should be easily discernable in our local environment over a few hours. Yet the effect is not observed, more water vapour is not leading to higher temperatures in fact just the opposite would seem to be the case. This suggests that maybe water vapour causes a net negative feedback effect rather than net positive feedback.

Certainly increasing atmospheric water vapour does increase retained energy to a very small degree but this impact is nowhere near as strong as claimed by IPCC. It is also far from the only effect of water in our environment and some of the other effects exhibit strong negative feedback. For example, greater humidity leads to more clouds which reflect a larger fraction of the incoming solar energy back out to space and away from Earth’s surface. Or the very large amount of energy absorbed by evaporating water. Energy which is then transported upwards and eventually re-radiated high up in the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is reduced. Or the energy taken to lift all that water several kilometres into the atmosphere against earth’s gravity (after all that is where the energy for hydroelectricity comes from). These are all negative feedback effects. (in fact the energy absorbed by evaporating water is a very significant factor in reducing the summer winter temperature difference at McKay and in the tropics generally).

Is this consistent with a larger summer/winter temperature variation in Melbourne? Yes it is, because in Melbourne the humidity summer versus winter varies less so the negative feedback from water vapour is correspondingly smaller."


Jimbo

[Pericles]

If CO2 is responsible for elevating global temperatures, then temperatures should have continued to climb from 1998.

There are four groups measuring global temperatures.

GISS - Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre - British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH - The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS - Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

It is not a difficult task to plot both the figures for CO2 and the temperatures provided by the four groups on the same sheet of graph paper and look at the results. This task has been undertaken by the Friends of Science website http://www.friendsofscience.org/ and is attached to this post.

It is inconceivable that even after a decade since global warming ended and seven years into a cooling trend with no end of cooling in sight, that world leaders are unaware of these facts and are still pursuing initiatives to stop global warming. Something is terribly wrong with the official international science bodies such as the IPCC who have not come forward and properly informed the world leaders of current global temperatures.

Something is terribly wrong with the individual government science bodies who did not come forward and inform their own leaders when it was certain that global warming had ended, or when there was sufficient data to claim that we are now in a cooling trend. It is not as though this is highly guarded secret data that can only be accessed by a limited group of people.

Unfortunately the AGW concept is so enshined in the public psyche through the graphic propaganda of the last several years that all verbal arguments against this ideology fall on deaf ears, and get shouted down by an indoctrinated crowd. While these people are deaf they are not blind, and no matter how loud the shouting, a graphic representation of increasing CO2 and decreasing global temperatures will be seen above the din.

If every presentation contained a graph similar to the one on the Friends of Science website this “visual” will eventually get in front of leaders who will be forced to reconsider the global warming initiatives that have been so costly to the world. The second graph below is a plot of the average of the satellite and the Hadley Center global monthly temperatures versus the monthly seasonally adjusted CO2 from NOAA ESRL since 2002. Note the clear downtrend in temperatures even as CO2 continues to rise.

[gonzo]

That's the beauty of politics, you don't need to know or really prove anything. It is the field of human endeavour where pseudoscience thrives.

[Guillermo]

The Sun has hit a 100-year low in sunspot activity, a 50-year low in solar wind pressure and a 55-year low in radio emissions. The decay of the sunspot cycle 23 with its very weak activity, the delay in the arriving of cycle 24 and the cooling of oceans and low troposphere temperatures since at least 2002, seem to be the first indications of the new trend, as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong.


A couple of precursors:

Fairbridge, R. W. and Shirley, J. H. (1987): Prolonged minima and the 179-year cycle of the solar inertial motion. Solar Physics 110, 191-220.

Abstract:

"The authors employ the JPL long ephemeris DE-102 to study the inertial motion of the Sun for the period A.D.760 - 2100. Defining solar orbits with reference to the Sun’s successive close approaches to the solar system barycenter, occurring at mean intervals of 19.86 yr, they find simple relationships linking the inertial orientation of the solar orbit and the amplitude of the precessional rotation of the orbit with the occurrence of the principal prolonged solar activity minima of the current millenium (the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder minima). The progression of the inertial orientation parameter is controlled by the 900-yr “great inequality” of the motion of Jupiter and Saturn, while the precessional rotation parameter is linked with the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion previously identified by Jose (1965). A new prolonged minimum of solar activity may be imminent."



Landscheidt T. (2003): New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, 1 May 2003 , pp. 327-350(24)

Abstract:

"Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ’skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event."

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

There will have to be snow in July in Death Valley before the no-growth nuts of the Climate Change Cult will admit they are wrong. Why? Because they will lose their chance to rebuild human society through administrative fiat in the name of saving the world. You have a better chance of them seeing the God they don't believe in rather than hear them admit they are wrong. All we can hope to do is educate enough people that the no-growth folks are the dangerous ones and their agenda is not about saving the environment.

[Boston]

well you guys are just having a love fest over here

The models making this prediction also predict that the impact of this water vapour feedback mechanism is a hot spot in the tropics at an altitude of about 8 km. According to the models, if the positive feedback effect of water is true then this region should be warming at least 2 times as fast as the surface. However again when I read the literature I find that 1000’s of balloon measurements and the satellite measurements all fail to find such a hot spot- and in fact this region is warming significantly less than the surface. The prediction is not supported experimentally suggesting the original hypothesis is false.

clearly this guy hasnt been paying attention to what those predictions actually were
my favorite part is that the predictions were made fifty years ago and are exactly coming true

If CO2 is responsible for elevating global temperatures, then temperatures should have continued to climb from 1998.

which they did

posting local data as some kind of proof rather than global one could show that we are in an ice age or a tropical rain forest

at least G is admitting that its greener these days
which is what happens when you speed up the biological process with yup
plant food ( co2 ) and temp

also I notice there is a lot of ice melting these days
any ideas
cause generally when ice melts it means its getting warmer

just stopping by to see whats up
sounds like nothing new
just the same old denial

if folks would contribute to the solution as avidly as they deny the problem it just might be that we could have licked this thing long ago

[Guillermo]

Good old Boston......

Originally Posted by Boston

which they did

prove it

Originally Posted by Boston

at least G is admitting that its greener these days

Didn't you, warmers, say planet was desertifying because of the warmer climate?

Originally Posted by Boston

also I notice there is a lot of ice melting these days

prove it


Cheers

[Boston]

A ) already did, just that like everything else the Deniers are ignoring the evidence, thats why I gave up on you guys, cause your not willing to even consider why 97% of scientist agree on this issue

B ) on land the shifting weather patterns are leading to desertification

(CNN) -- Millions of people could lose their homes and livelihoods as the world's deserts expand because of climate change and unsustainable human activities, an environmental report warned on Friday.

The report, part of a series examining the state of the world's biological resources, was released on the eve of "World Day to Combat Desertifcation," which marks the 11th anniversary of a UN agreement to tackle spreading deserts.

But Zafar Adeel of the United Nations University International Network on Water, Environment and Health, an expert on water management and a leading author of the report, warned that more needed to be done to combat desertification.

"Desertification has emerged as a global problem affecting everyone," said Adeel.

in temporate climates there is a trend towards greening based on more exposed soil ( now that the ice has melted off and snow fall has generally diminished ) and based on more intensive farming in an attempt to keep up with feeding 6.7 billion people

also in aquatic enviroments there is a trend towards greening however this is mainly due to algal blooms based on way to many nutrients in the water and usually ends up as an aerobically stratified environment

C ) already did, why do you think you guys got labeled deniers. Your going to deny anything no mater how much evidence is produced that doesnt fit with your dreamworld of peaches and cream.

take a look back through the thread and check out all the glacier evidence that has been presented. There are numerous charts that clearly show a serious decline in the vast majority of glacier worldwide.

prove it is the basic industry stalling tactic
science doesnt seek to prove anything but instead seeks to show what is most likely to be true and what is least likely to be true
in the case of climate change it is 97% evident that we have significantly altered the climate system

if 97 people in a class all come up with independent studies concluding x to be true
and 3 peoples work fails to agree either with the 97 or each others
who you gonna believe

deniers pick one of the three
science will throw out the highs and the lows and take a serious look at whats left

proves who has an open mind
provides evidence from which to develop a theory
in this case
the theory of rapid climate change
which
has made been used to make predictions back in the 1950's
and those predictions have proven themselves accurate

proof
no
overwhelming evidence resulting in one of the largest consensus view ever seen in science
yes

cheers
B

[fasteddy106]

Concensus in science is meaningless without empirical evidence to back it up. Lets see, distorted data, purposely misplanted temp stations, outright lies, physical and economic threats against dissenters, fraudulent studies and assumptions from computer models based on a faulty premise. If this is concensus then we don't need it. The claim of 97% is phony, it can't be backed up, but the 31,000+ plus dissenters names can. Odd that in the middle of so called desertification the Sahara is getting smaller and the Sahel has recieved more rain in the past decade than the previous 3. Finally it only takes one scientist to prove a concensus wrong. The Climate Change cult or religion is nothing more than an attempt to impose an agenda by left wing social engineers by administrative fiat that they couldn't possibly hope to accomplish at the ballot box. The folks you refer to as "the unwashed masses" recognize the smell of ******** and who is full of it. The real deniers are those who started with an assumption of warming in order to impose an agenda and backfilled the data and now won't admit what a bunch of intellectual frauds and elitists they are now that they have been exposed by those who refused to knuckle under to their extortion and intimidation.

[Boston]

sounds more like a paranoia issue than a scientific position worthy of debate
all the classic "the world government is coming to eat our children" BS

Please this thread has been over each and every one of the listed issues and in every case found the deniers case wanting

I recomend you read the thread before engaging in topics already covered

[fasteddy106]

Typical, when your debating points are vacuous of logic, attack the opponent. Think of all the all the regulations that will be needed to implement the agenda of the no-growth folks and the climate change cult and how it will affect every moment of your day. Paranoia, no, well placed fear of omnipotent government, you betcha. Your right, we have been over these issues, and it is your arguments that are lacking and do not hold up to the scrutiny of independent review by those not on the payroll of the IPCC or government agency grants.

[Boston]

obviously you have not read the thread
the evidences presented are overwhelming and the logic based on a sound understanding of the science
deniers on the other hand are consistently found to have misunderstood or misrepresented the evidence
97% is about the largest consensus ever developed by any theory including the theory of relativity
obviously you are some kind of conspiracy nutter who would have us believe the 150 years or so of climate change research has all been a plot to some day take over the world.

right
in political science there is a type of argument called double speak. You got it down pretty well accusing generations of the scientific community of exactly the tricks the deniers are pulling. you really want to go over some of the sources quoted round here, or discuss the 97% consensus or even what a consensus is and what it is used for in science.

your barking up the wrong tree on this one mate
might want to check the paranoia at the door and take a new look at 150 years of science on the issue

Ill post this again since Im positive you are not going to be willing to put the time into reading this thread



what is most evident in nearly every single denier is that they are lacking any knowledge in the history of the development of the theory and what the predictions of that theory are. There is also a serious lack of awareness of who is leading the shrinking few who still deny warming is occurring and what there motivations might be.

go look up the glacier data or the ice data on a global scale
and tell me with a straight face that the ice is not melting
then explain how the ice can be melting if the globe is cooling
cause its not
its warming
fast
even though we are in a solar minimum
kinda frightening eh

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Concensus in science is meaningless without empirical evidence to back it up. Lets see, distorted data, purposely misplanted temp stations, outright lies, physical and economic threats against dissenters, fraudulent studies and assumptions from computer models based on a faulty premise.

Empirical evidence; will for a period (let's hope) be difficult to get exact. any large experiment like that, for it to be exact, must be based upon experiments already performed; and outcome known....
And the treehuggers (me incl.) will be "satisfyed" with calculation/ models that show a trend, while the deniers will use any uncertainty in the assumption to say that this is not enough to build corrective actions upon.

Misplanted temp stations; On land areas, there are many temp stations poorly placed, and these will show wrong trends. On the other hand (riding my well known arguments here again); The atmosphere is only something similar to the first 10 m of sea in its possibility to keep heat content (approx). There are many studies that have proven (with some uncertainties, off course ) that the sea temperature have on large areas increased, way below the 10 m limit... , pretty certain estimates of the change in heat input also, that is difficult to explain in other ways that we're getting warmer. The ice in the Artic regions is thinner, less ice extent of multiple sea ice, and that is sufficient for me to for instance; say that the sea temp in this region has increased. And by the way; sea temp right outside here is also a tiny bit higher than the average.... now. And the sea temperatures the last couple of years, in the summers, have worried a couple of the researchers on the station approx 70 km from here; Its not the fact that only the surface is warmer, that's pretty normal, and variations that the surface is warmer than normal can be explained by normal variations, but a considerable change (increase) in the water temperture also at -20 m (or was it 19 m?) is something new.
So take the distance from sothern part of Norway, to the Arctic, some area, the Gulf Stream spread this temp increase out, over this area. And we have a change in the heat input. This heat/ increase; It's gotta come from somewhere...? Consider this to be a local trend, but then there are other areas that have experienced something similar, wich may be many enough that makes this a global issue....

So, to make some assumption that this local warming, takes only a little change in heat input/ heat loss...Over a defined area. We have (among many) CO2; that have its mechanical properties, that can't be denied or explained away.
We burn off a building full of oil, each year, sized 1000 x 1000 x 4500 meters (base dimension x height) One barrel (approx 160 ltr? not my way of measuring) will make approx 320 kg CO2.....
One m3 of CO2 as gas will take up 1,9 kg or something,
spread this thin out in the atmosphere for years,
add the other fossile fuels, coal/ gas....
Even a short expected life span of the CO2 in the atmosphere can cause some effect.

Edit; Climate models must improve, as they are right now, they show the trend (in my opinion pretty clearly), but the lack of certainity does not rule out possible actions.....

On the other hand; weather is crap... a little local warming right now.....

[fasteddy106]

Knut, the CO2 argument is a distortion in itself. Anthopogenic CO2 only makes up 3% of the total and the total is less that 3% of the atmosphere so any model or conclusions based on CO are like trying to measure the impact of a fart in a hurricane. If the models and conclusions are based on poorly placed temp stations then the information from those misplaced stations are crap and distort the data and the conclusions and the models based on the data. Artic ice this year has returned to normal levels and the Antartic Ice cap is increasing in thickness and has been for decades. So really all we have is a big what if? Now if the response to the what if was global and uniform we might have something to work with but it is not. What is being proposed is to devolve the developed economies through a series of tax schemes and regulations while the underdeveloped economies catch up and are not required to share in the alleviation burden and can pollute to their hearts desires. Then once we are all equally miserable, some more equal than others of course, we will let the bureaucrats devide up the world economy. My fear is that the bureaucrats will be led by smug elitists like Boston who show an obvious disdain for the "unwashed masses" as he terms them.

[Pericles]

We had a Bank Holiday yesterday. The weather was cool and wet in NW London. The BBQ was a waste of time, not the cooking, just the eating outside. Here's why. http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm

"Updated 2009 May 25 2201 UTC

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity

SDF Number 145 Issued at 2200Z on 25 May 2009

Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 24/2100Z to 25/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares were observed during the past 24 hours. The visible disk remained spotless.

Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low.

Geophysical Activity Summary 24/2100Z to 25/2100Z: The geomagnetic field was quiet.

Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet for the next three days (26-28 May)."

Where is this Global Warming we are supposed to be having? As temperatures continue to fail to endeavour to persevere, without prejudice, I hereby provide a useful link for a warming dish on a miserable British summer weekend.. http://www.aboutgeorgia.net/cuisine/meats.html?page=8

Scrumptious.