What Do We Think About Climate Change

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Balance- how rare is that in this issue:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html

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

 

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"

 

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

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

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.

 

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

 

visit:
http://www.partenovcfd.com

 

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

 

Boston,

This is the very part that Roy Spencer, et al, have disproven with their research. The poor performance of climate models using the mechanism you outlined above also underscore the fact that this understanding is in error. They had the succession wrong right from the beginning, putting the effect in front of the cause, thus the persistent error.

Jimbo

 

Boston,
You have a not scientific position at all, excuse me. That's precisely your problem. You judge the work and ideas of the people not because the instrinsic merit, but just because what their adversaries (or plain enemies) say about him/her. That's fundamentalist religion, not science.

Cheers.

 

This fight of global warming skeptics against global warming alarmists, remembers me the fight of David against Goliath or, to put it in more spanish terms, the battle of Blas de Lezo against the fleet of Admiral Vernon in Cartagena de Indias.



Cheers.

 

actually I judged it partly based on the fact it was rejected by the scientific community
over and over again
partly because he obviously receives funding from sources with a vested interest in the outcome of his work
both completely valid scientific reasons to also reject what he is saying
and partly because having read what he is saying it became obvious based on the contempt he holds for his peers that he is not writing from an impartial point of view, something that is kinda key in writing a scientific paper
which that was not

his work was reviewed and rejected not only by myself
but by the scientific community as a hole
what more do you want me to say