Global Warming and all that stuff.

[CapelDodger]

What I fail to understand is that, the warmer the atmosphere gets (to a certain point) the more water vapor is in the atmosphere. Water vapor traps in heat as well if not more than CO2 but there is an equilibrium that will have to be met simply because the more watervapor in the air the more cloud cover and the more cloud cover there is the more of the suns rays being reflected back into space.

The correlation between water vapour and clouds is by no means simple. Water vapour increases with temperature because the rate of evaporation increases. This acts, not just on surface water, but also on the droplets of water that create clouds. This makes it more difficult for clouds to form, so there can be more water vapour about without any increase in cloud-formation.

To quote Murphy's First Law, nothing is as simple as it seems .

 

[Ceritus]

There will always be a convective condensation level. It just may mean it is higher. Higher clouds will reflect energy back into space pretty much the same as lower clouds do. Infact the higher the cloud doing the reflection the better because there would be nothing up above it to reflect it back down as opposed to low clouds

 

[CapelDodger]

There will always be a convective condensation level.

There'll always be adiabatic cooling, if that's what you're referring to, but that remains unchanged by an increasing ambient temperature.

It just may mean it is higher.

There's no good reason to think so. Relative humidity and the associated dew-point vary with temperature and water-vapour content, in the opposite sense.

]Higher clouds will reflect energy back into space pretty much the same as lower clouds do.

Higher clouds would have some effect, but so far there's no evidence for them. You seem to have promoted a "might" to a "will" with no intervening step.

Infact the higher the cloud doing the reflection the better because there would be nothing up above it to reflect it back down as opposed to low clouds

Strong warming has been going on on for at least two decades, and there's no sign that this is happening. That's promoted your "might" to "didn't" by actual example.

 

[Harpoon]

A minor quibble : Las Vegas doesn't need more power, it wants more power. There's a distinction, IMO.

Does a crackhead need crack or want crack? We're talkin' Vegas, Baby.

 

[mhaze]

The correlation between water vapour and clouds is by no means simple. Water vapour increases with temperature because the rate of evaporation increases. This acts, not just on surface water, but also on the droplets of water that create clouds. This makes it more difficult for clouds to form, so there can be more water vapour about without any increase in cloud-formation.

To quote Murphy's First Law, nothing is as simple as it seems .

Huh? If you lift air up to the point when 100% saturation exists, bingo, visible moisture = clouds. This is called weather. This occurs as a simple is ample where puffy summer cumulous clouds occur as local thermal action lifts up air.

 

[Schneibster]

OK, so it's been getting hotter- where are all the clouds? Just in case CD was too roundabout.

 

[mhaze]

OK, so it's been getting hotter- where are all the clouds? Just in case CD was too roundabout.

One issue is that clouds are three dimensional volumes formed after evaporation, a two dimensional (mostly) thing. Perhaps increased temp results in higher cloud cover but not proportionally.

 

[mhaze]

OK, so it's been getting hotter- where are all the clouds? Just in case CD was too roundabout.

from Wikipedia-

Global brightening

New research From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface by Martin Wild et al. (Science 6 May 2005; 308: 847-850) indicates global brightening trend.


Global brightening is caused by decreased amounts of particulate matter in the atmosphere. With less particulate matter there is less surface area for condensation to occur. Since there's less condensation in the atmosphere and increased evaporation caused by increasing amounts of sunlight striking the water's surface there is more moisture, causing fewer but thicker clouds.

 

[CapelDodger]

Huh? If you lift air up to the point when 100% saturation exists, bingo, visible moisture = clouds. This is called weather. This occurs as a simple is ample where puffy summer cumulous clouds occur as local thermal action lifts up air.

Clouds typically form below the saturation point because nucleation sites bind with water for reasons unrelated to temperature. H2O remains a polar molecule even when in flight, so Van de Waal forces (and other such stuff that Schneibster has a far better grasp of than a dilettante like myself) come into play.

Clouds, despite their appearance, are mostly air, and in a warmer world that air has more water vapour in it than in a cooler. As does the rest of the atmosphere. This is where the greenhouse effect takes ... effect. Ugh. But there it is.

Clouds, once they've formed, have their own dynamics that are dictated by such matters as the density of water, surface-tension, air-resistance, and so on. Temperature plays a negligible role. That's why clouds look and behave the same way whatever the average tropospheric temperature happens to be. Within reasonable bounds, of course; boil away the oceans and all bets are off. But since we don't live on Venus, let's not trouble ourselves with such extreme cases .

 

[Ysidro]

I want to jump in with something else here. I just saw this video: http://break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Essentially he's using Pascal's Wager but replacing Climate Change with God and Ecological Collapse with Hell (and yes, he's bombastic enough I feel the captalizations are worthy.)

So, does he have an argument? I find him hard to take serious when he uses a third rate religious argument. But does that mean he's wrong?

 

[CapelDodger]

from Wikipedia

The dilettante's first recourse. And I should know. I wouldn't be seen dead linking directly to it, though.

Global brightening

New research From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface by Martin Wild et al. (Science 6 May 2005; 308: 847-850) indicates global brightening trend.


Global brightening is caused by decreased amounts of particulate matter in the atmosphere. With less particulate matter there is less surface area for condensation to occur. Since there's less condensation in the atmosphere ...

Is there? A reduction in nucleation sites will only result in a reduction of condensation if the availability of such sites is a limiting factor, but this hasn't been demonstrated. You've made an unjustifed leap there. If the troposphere is still saturated with nucleation sites despite a reduction in anthropogenic sources there will be no effect on condensation in atmosphero. What suggests that it isn't? Nothing I've heard of.

... and increased evaporation caused by increasing amounts of sunlight striking the water's surface there is more moisture, causing fewer but thicker clouds.

Which have not materialised. Clouds behave just as they did when they were first observed, way before the industrial age. Memorialised in poetry and folk-lore.

AGP (Anthropogenically Generated Particulates) have two distinct and unrelated effects - one on albedo, the other on cloud formation. The first is not in question, the second is, and it would anyway be sheer coincidence if one should happen to counteract or reinforce the other.

We've seen two decades and more of increasing temperatures and decreasing particulates without any sign that clouds are going to save the situation. It's a straw that's not even worth clutching at anymore.

 

[Ceritus]

Higher clouds would have some effect, but so far there's no evidence for them. You seem to have promoted a "might" to a "will" with no intervening step.

High clouds have a major effect on temperature. When there is cirrostratus expected or being observed the model temperature is normally off by about 07-08C where the models are expecting it to be warmer than it actually is. So if the models look somewhat sound and they are telling me that there is going to be a high temp of 38C I will go with 30C if I am observing CS upstream. I have a 98.3% EFR and I am rarely off by more than 1C on any temp forecast.

The question is not if cloud cover will reflect energy back into space but if clouds will form. I was talking about CCL not adiabatic cooling because that is a given as a parcel of air rises it cools most people know this. But the CCl is the level in which clouds will occur. The more WV in the atmosphere the more cloud cover there is and there is no real speculation on this it is fact.

To completely discount this is rediculous. There should be much more research into this subject before any claims of doom and gloom and I am half tempted to start it.

 

[CapelDodger]

But does that mean he's wrong?

That's a row-oriented question .

Thanks for the link, it's well worth watching.

 

[Schneibster]

The more WV in the atmosphere the more cloud cover there is and there is no real speculation on this it is fact.

Really? I heard it was the higher the relative humidity the more cloud cover forms. And RH decreases for a given WV content with temperature, as anyone who has studied physics knows.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/...&issn=1520-0493&volume=122&issue=06&page=1021

I see no mention of WV content, but a very prominent mention of RH.

 

[CapelDodger]

High clouds have a major effect on temperature.

No question there.

When there is cirrostratus expected or being observed the model temperature is normally off by about 07-08C where the models are expecting it to be warmer than it actually is.

What models, and where did they come into this discussion anyway? The great big real-time and unfailingly accurate analogue model outside our front-doors has not conjured up extra cirrostratus to counteract AGW.

So if the models look somewhat sound and they are telling me that there is going to be a high temp of 38C I will go with 30C if I am observing CS upstream. I have a 98.3% EFR and I am rarely off by more than 1C on any temp forecast.

Good for you. Not terribly relevant, though. Presumably you're referring to weather models, but what's your track-record on global temperature predictions for 2015? Unproven, I'd venture.

The question is not if cloud cover will reflect energy back into space but if clouds will form. I was talking about CCL not adiabatic cooling because that is a given as a parcel of air rises it cools most people know this. But the CCl is the level in which clouds will occur. The more WV in the atmosphere the more cloud cover there is and there is no real speculation on this it is fact.

The observation is that clouds aren't stopping AGW. It's also a fact that the warmer the temperature the more water-vapour there remains in the atmosphere when clouds form.

To completely discount this is rediculous. There should be much more research into this subject before any claims of doom and gloom and I am half tempted to start it.

Research into the subject started long ago, with no lack of funding - you should apply for some, start with Exxon and they'll point you in the right "hands-off" direction. Call it new if you like, they won't quibble. They're into quantity, not quality.

I didn't discount a negative feedback from cloud-cover when it was postulated twenty years ago. Twenty years later, with no sign of it, I'll confidently discount it because it has not been observed as predicted. The hypothesis has had its chance and has proved wanting. All that it has left, for those desperately clinging to it, is some as-yet unreached and undefined tipping-point where it will start kicking-in. Frankly, I'm even less than unconvinced.

 

[Schneibster]

I want to jump in with something else here. I just saw this video: http://break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Essentially he's using Pascal's Wager but replacing Climate Change with God and Ecological Collapse with Hell (and yes, he's bombastic enough I feel the captalizations are worthy.)

So, does he have an argument? I find him hard to take serious when he uses a third rate religious argument. But does that mean he's wrong?

Given I don't accept it for religion, I see no reason I should accept it for AGW, no matter which side I'm on. But "wrong" is not how I'd put it. It's a bad argument, though, that's for sure.

 

[David Rodale]

A few questions:
1) How confident should be we be that ground surface temperature measurements are accurate and done to recognized standards?

2) What affect does cosmic rays and solar magnetic activity have on cloud formation, and ultimately, climate?

3) What is the true lambda of earth?

4) Are GCM's to be relied upon for projected climate changes?

Thanks.

 

[CapelDodger]

Given I don't accept it for religion, I see no reason I should accept it for AGW, no matter which side I'm on. But "wrong" is not how I'd put it. It's a bad argument, though, that's for sure.

It's not a scientific argument, but it's a superior non-scientific argument to those that are presented by denialists and wishful-thinkers, IMO.

 

[mhaze]

A few questions:
1) How confident should be we be that ground surface temperature measurements are accurate and done to recognized standards?

Go here to be able to actually help establish that answer.

 

[Schneibster]

A few questions:

And a few questions in return.

1) How confident should be we be that ground surface temperature measurements are accurate and done to recognized standards?

1. What part of "satellite temperature measurements" do you not understand?
2. What part of "a thousand-square-mile ice shelf collapsed into the sea" do you not get?
3. What part of "the ice coverage in the Arctic is lower than the models predicted, and correcting the models for this indicates that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer twenty years sooner than we thought" do you not comprehend?

2) What affect does cosmic rays and solar magnetic activity have on cloud formation, and ultimately, climate?

4. Why do you think it has any effect at all? (Affect is not a noun, unless you are discussing psychiatry.)
5. What do you contend that effect might be?
6. Why do you think that effect might take place? (By what mechanism?)
7. Considering that the Sun has passed solar maximum and is currently approaching solar minimum, how do you account for the fact that the temperature continues to rise?
8. What evidence do you present to argue that cosmic rays have varied in or out of phase with climate?

3) What is the true lambda of earth?

9. What is lambda, other than a Greek letter sometimes used as an operand in mathematics?
10. Why do you think lambda is important in this instance?

4) Are GCM's to be relied upon for projected climate changes?

11. What are GCMs?
12. Considering that (if you are referring to some particular class of climate model) they were made by the most experienced and knowledgeable people in the discipline, what evidence do you present that they should not be?

Thanks.

Sure. No problem.