Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

nally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Skeptics could say that too. Declare the victory without a contest.

Skeptics are informed.
You aren't.
Gavin can be skeptical about a model.....you can't because you demonstrably and I recall admittedly know very little if anything about atmospheric science or modeling it.

Some of the scientists here are in a position to act as informed skeptics. Alec and I disagree about methane risk, he is better informed than I am tho I may still make him work for it

You are not in any position to be a skeptic about AGW because you are simply and demonstrably ill informed and refuse to accept established principles even down to physical properties of matter.

Not sure what the appropriate term would be for someone like that but it ain't skeptic and would not be very complimentary.

 

[Belz...]

Yet, as usual, there was only isolated "record coldest" cells in the grid -in this case, only one, in Kurdistan- and a lot of "record warmest" grid cells everywhere:

Yeah but it has to be warmest _everywhere_, every year, or it doesn't count and AGW is a hoax. Or something.

 

[CapelDodger]

Water vapor forms clouds, which reflect sunlight.

Clouds form from liquid water, not water vapour. Atmospheric water vapour (absolute humidity) has increased in the last few decades while cloud cover has not.

CO2 and water and heat (over certain ranges) stimulate plant growth, which leads to sequestration of CO₂.

Reducing the rate of increase but not preventing or reversing it. As we know, CO₂ has continued to increase so whatever's being sequestered, in whatever sink, is less than what we're adding.

Not all feedbacks are positive. Given the relative stability of the Earth's climate over the long haul (within the bounds imposed by orbital mechanics), likely negative feedbacks dominate.

The Earth goes through regular transitions between glaciations with kilometres-thick ice covering much of the Northern Hemisphere and inter-glacials such as this one we're living in. That's not stability in any meaningful sense.

 

[macdoc]

MK

likely negative feedbacks dominate.

wow.....

You do understand that CO2 magnifies in both directions cooling and warming????....do you actually understand what a feedback is?
You going to read it this time or continue to be poorly informed?

CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System
Zeke Hausfather — October 25, 2007

A fundamental misconception about the role that carbon dioxide plays in glacial transitions has helped fuel the argument that the lag time between temperature and CO2 in the paleoclimate record casts doubt on carbon dioxide as an important greenhouse gas.
It’s crucial that media reporting on climate change understand an important distinction between the dual roles of greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/

does CO2 trap IR ??
seems you have not answered such a simple question of physical properties

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Clouds form from liquid water, not water vapour.

Just how do you suppose that liquid water get up there?

 

[macdoc]

Clouds form from suspended liquid water that is water vapor coalesced around particulates that then will form into visible clouds depending on thermocline and other factors.
Water vapour does not = clouds.....there has to be condensation.

. Clouds are usually produced through condensation - as the air rises, it will cool and reducing the temperature of the air decreases its ability to hold water vapour so that condensation occurs. The height at which dew point is reached and clouds form is called the condensation level.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/clouds/what-are-clouds

note - ice crystals as well as well as liquid water

 

[Megalodon]

Clouds form from liquid water, not water vapour. Atmospheric water vapour (absolute humidity) has increased in the last few decades while cloud cover has not.

Just how do you suppose that liquid water get up there?

The italicized bit, that you conveniently snipped from your quote should have saved you the effort of making that question.

By the way, the italicized bit was there because your misconception (let's call it that) is a common one, and it has been used as an excuse for doing nothing about AGW for a while now.

So, to recap, you are wrong. Not only you are wrong about things you thought you were right about, and are now trying to backpedal on, you are wrong about things you probably didn't even know you were implying with your wrongness.

 

[macdoc]

MK

Does anyone see any climate science in any of the above?

Purposeful blinkers again - don't see what you don't want to acknowledge
...you were educated on who is appropriately informed to be a skeptic on a facet of climate science....models. Gavin Schmidt is.

you're not
you brought it up.

JREF

You choose to ignore science just as you choose to ignore a bit of education on who can be an informed skeptic.

Megalodon is one.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
The direction and strength of the feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, plant uptake, methane in soils, etc.) are deduced from observed measurements and comparison with model predictions, not directly observed.Okay.

not everyone sits in a cubicle minding photons on a screen as you seem to think the world is composed of
....some here do actual science and measure and observe directly and examine the models to conform with observations. There has been a fairly consistent undershoot on modeling against observation but they are getting better.

Here you go....y'know the E thing again

http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/

 

[lomiller]

Just how do you suppose that liquid water get up there?

How do you suppose water vapor turns into liquid water?

 

[DC]

Everything exists "because of physics". For many phenomena, it's easier to generate predictions from less fundamental science than physics.Right. Water vapor forms clouds, which reflect sunlight. CO2 and water and heat (over certain ranges) stimulate plant growth, which leads to sequestration of CO₂. Not all feedbacks are positive. Given the relative stability of the Earth's climate over the long haul (within the bounds imposed by orbital mechanics), likely negative feedbacks dominate.Thanks for the link. I'll look at that.

the models simulate physics, its not that the models are told to simply form less clouds when the surface temps rise. this is a consequence of the simulation of the physics and chemistry. that is how they even got the idea that increased surface temps reduce cloud cover.

well water vapor inderectly forms clouds. clouds are not made of water vapor, but of liquid or frozen water in combination with aerosols.

and clouds do not only reflect sun light, the also reflect IR radiation and preventing it from escaping to space, thus leading to warming. it all depends on the hight of the cloud wich effect is stronger.

and plant growth increase is nowhere enough to set off our increased CO2 levels. and why do you think negative feedbacks dominate?
i don't know if one can even say negative or positive feedbacks dominate, the feedbacks cause the changes to amplify. when it cools down, the feedbacks amplify that cooling. for example do to the formation of more ice and snow areas, more sunlight gets reflected and thus increases the cooling. and when it warms up, and ice and snow areas become less, more sunlight is absorbed, increasing the warming.

so especially when you talk about stable climate its not dominated by any feedbacks.

 

[Haig]

The Earth goes through regular transitions between glaciations with kilometres-thick ice covering much of the Northern Hemisphere and inter-glacials such as this one we're living in. That's not stability in any meaningful sense.

Have to agree with you there. What do you think caused those glaciations?

What caused the LIA during the Maunder Minimum?

Similar conditions that existed at the start of the LIA are predicted to start around 2014 according to Abdussamatov and the facts are going his way ...

Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age

Thus, we can predict beginning of the Grand Maunder-type minimum of the TSI of the quasibicentennial cycle in the year 2043*±*11 and the deep 19th Grand Maunder-type minimum of the temperature for the past 7,500 years in the year 2060*±*11 (Figure 7). Now we witness the transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998-2005. The epoch of the new Little Ice Age is expected to begin around the year 2014 after the maximum of solar cycle 24, and begin the phase of deep cooling the Little Ice Age-in around the year 2060 ± 11

http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/2329-6755/2329-6755-2-113.pdf

 

[Haig]

I suppose that, when cornered by science and evidence, the only way is to try some good old fashioned suppression.

Yes, it's truly shocking what warmists will do when cornered by science and evidence ...

Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!

In extraordinary news, the scientific journal Pattern Recognition in Physics has been unexpectedly terminated, a “drastic decision” taken just ten months after it started.

The publisher appears to be shocked that in a recent special issue the scientists expressed doubt about the accelerated warming predicted by the IPCC. For the crime of not bowing before the sacred tabernacle, apparently the publishers suddenly felt the need to distance themselves, and in the most over-the-top way. The reasons they gave had nothing to do with the data, the logic, and they cite no errors. There can be no mistake, this is about enforcing a permitted line of thought.

 

[Haig]

....some here do actual science and measure and observe directly and examine the models to conform with observations. There has been a fairly consistent undershoot on modeling against observation but they are getting better.

Getting better ... really?

Some do actual science and measure and observe directly and make correct predictions ...

Secrets of Polar Vortex Exposed

Piers Corbin, the owner of WeatherAction.com, to analyze the causes of extreme winter weather conditions seen throughout the U.S., and to discuss how the "global warming" agenda, or "climate change" as it's increasingly being referenced, is losing steam.

Then there are others that are an embarrassment ...

#spiritofmawson ship of fools apologize for mess, face recovery costs

“We’re incredibly grateful to everyone who’s come out to help us,” leader of the privately funded expedition, Professor Chris Turney, told a media conference in Hobart.

“We are terribly sorry for any impact that it might have had on fellow colleagues whose work has been delayed.

I don’t know how liability for rescue costs is allocated. However, the fact that the University of New South Wales is a party to the sub-charter places its potential liability in a new light. However, in most legal proceedings, plaintiffs look for the party with the deepest pockets, which, in this case, would be the University of New South Wales.

 

[macdoc]

Why are you discussing weather predictions? Global climate models do not deal with local transient weather phenomena.

 

[lomiller]

Yes, it's truly shocking what warmists will do when cornered by science and evidence ...

Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!

They lied to the publisher and committed academic “malpractice” in their choice editors and referees.
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/

Of course the fact that the publication had an inherent position at all should have told you all you needed to know, but the fact that the “journal” was really just the same 4 people writing, editing and reviewing each others “papers” so they could pass them off as science tells you just how little integrity these deniers have.

 

[Haig]

Why are you discussing weather predictions? Global climate models do not deal with local transient weather phenomena.

You are being hypocritical when you mention current heatwaves in Australia with hints to it's AGW cause in previous posts.

However Australian heatwaves are nothing new

No doubt we will hear how the current heatwaves in Australia are “unprecedented” and evidence of dangerous man-made global warming.

They are neither “global” nor “unprecedented”.

In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.


In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.

Why don’t we hear of these severe heatwaves from the past? Simple – the government Bureau of Meteorology conveniently ignores all temperature records before 1910.

 

[lomiller]

However Australian heatwaves are nothing new

Neither is cold weather in winter...

 

[Megalodon]

Yes, it's truly shocking what warmists will do when cornered by science and evidence ...

Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!

Considering that even Anthony Watts is appalled at the poor editorial standards of the defunct journal, I would say there's not much meat on that bone for deniers.

The Journal was terminated because there was an understanding that the editorial board was not going to use it as an Anti-AGW soapbox, but to do what the name of the Journal implied. They failed to do so, and let very bad articles through, that in no reputable journal would have gone through without severe editorial remarks (at the least). Additionally, and according to the publisher, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis. That is a big no-no.

Copernicus, trying to maintain the good name that is so difficult to achieve and maintain among open access publishers, closed them down.

Importantly, the offending issues were not removed or edited, so anyone can read them, cite them or laugh at them for as long as the publisher exists.

So, once again I get to say that you're wrong.

 

[DC]

Have to agree with you there. What do you think caused those glaciations?

What caused the LIA during the Maunder Minimum?

Similar conditions that existed at the start of the LIA are predicted to start around 2014 according to Abdussamatov and the facts are going his way ...

Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age

http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/2329-6755/2329-6755-2-113.pdf

LIA has nothing to do with glaciations. those are cause by the Milankovitch Cycles.


http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

the LIA was most likely caused mainly by volcanic activity.

http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-465.pdf

... repeated explosive volcanism at a time
when Earth’s orbital configuration resulted in low summer
insolation across the NH acted as a climate trigger, allowing
Arctic Ocean sea ice to expand. Increased sea ice export
may have engaged a self-sustaining sea-ice/ocean feedback
unique to the northern North Atlantic region that maintained
suppressed summer air temperatures for centuries after vol-
canic aerosols were removed from the atmosphere. ...