Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[DogB]

True, but the only ways that the global average atmospheric pressure can change is if mass is added to or subtracted from the atmosphere or if there is a change in the mass of the Earth. As far as I'm aware, neither the mass of the atmosphere nor the mass of the Earth has changed significantly in the past few decades.

Surely if it's warmer the mass of the atmosphere will go up. The percentage of the hydrosphere in gaseous form will increase?

 

[mhaze]

I believe that there is an even more obvious problem with Miskolczi's theory: it appears to contradict what we know about phase changes. Miskolczi's theory requires the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere to be controlled by the concentrations of other greenhouse gases because it requires the combined optical depth of all the greenhouse gases to be constant. If both the temperature and the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 are increasing, as has been the case recently, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere must decrease to maintain the combined optical depth. This situation contradicts the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which requires an increasing temperature to lead to an increase in the evaporation rate.

From pp.23 of the paper w/discusion going on to 24:

The greenhouse parameters are dependent only on the flux optical depth, therefore, it is difficult to imagine any water vapor feedback mechanism to operate on global scale.

(which is an approach similar to that of Razo's post)

Since the world oceans are virtually unlimited sources and sinks of the atmospheric water vapor (optical depth), the system - depending on the time constant of the different energy reservoirs - has many ways to restore the equilibrium situation and maintain the steady state global climate. For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the

24

general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy flow with less water vapor available. This could increase the global average rain rate and speed up the global water cycle resulting in a more dynamical climate, but still the energy balance equations do not allow the average surface temperature to rise. The general circulation can not change the global radiative balance although, changes in the meridional heat transfer may result in local or zonal warming or cooling which again leads to a more dynamical climate. Note that there are accumulating evidence of long term negative surface pressure trends all over the southern hemisphere, (Hines et al., 2000), which may be an indication of decreasing water vapor amount in the atmosphere.

And from that you get the CA thread mentioned in #97, continued here, which asks whether empirical measurements of humidity do or do not support Miskolczi’s law.

Directly to the conclusion suggested by Raza, pp. 24 continues:

In the view of the existence of the ...critical optical depths, the runaway greenhouse theories have very little physical foundations..... sooner or later - due to the energy conservation principle - the global energy balance must be restored. On the long run the general energy balance requirement of Eq. (9) obviously overrules the IR radiative balance requirement of Eq. (28).

 

[Wangler]

True, but the only ways that the global average atmospheric pressure can change is if mass is added to or subtracted from the atmosphere or if there is a change in the mass of the Earth. As far as I'm aware, neither the mass of the atmosphere nor the mass of the Earth has changed significantly in the past few decades.

I've done some more looking, and it appears that for the optical depth to remain constant as mizkolski maintains, the water vapor will go down, depending upon where you look, pressure wise (surface, low altitude, or high altitude).

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

From pp.23 of the paper w/discusion going on to 24:

The greenhouse parameters are dependent only on the flux optical depth, therefore, it is difficult to imagine any water vapor feedback mechanism to operate on global scale.

(which is an approach similar to that of Razo's post)

Since the world oceans are virtually unlimited sources and sinks of the atmospheric water vapor (optical depth), the system - depending on the time constant of the different energy reservoirs - has many ways to restore the equilibrium situation and maintain the steady state global climate. For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the

24

general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy flow with less water vapor available. This could increase the global average rain rate and speed up the global water cycle resulting in a more dynamical climate, but still the energy balance equations do not allow the average surface temperature to rise. The general circulation can not change the global radiative balance although, changes in the meridional heat transfer may result in local or zonal warming or cooling which again leads to a more dynamical climate. Note that there are accumulating evidence of long term negative surface pressure trends all over the southern hemisphere, (Hines et al., 2000), which may be an indication of decreasing water vapor amount in the atmosphere.

It's been a long time since I took a chemistry class, but wouldn't reducing the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere through increasing the precipitation rate lower the partial pressure of water vapor below the saturation vapor pressure and cause an increase in the rate of evaporation?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Surely if it's warmer the mass of the atmosphere will go up. The percentage of the hydrosphere in gaseous form will increase?

Since the concentrations of the greenhouse gas must spontaneously adjust to changes in the concentrations of other greenhouse gases in order to maintain a constant optical depth, the change in the mass of the atmosphere depends on the amount of increase or decrease of each gas. The calculation of the net change in atmospheric mass for the various combinations of changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[macdoc]

mHaze pontificated

therefore, it is difficult to imagine any water vapor feedback mechanism to operate on global scale.

NASA OBSERVEDsnip

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said.

“Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35952

Which makes mHaze's imagination a fail...

DogB yes absolutely the mass of the atmosphere will rise...damn energy transforms again.....always raising their ugly thunderheads....

••

Critters still restless too..common sense there....not like some silly apes..

As climate shifts, birds follow
Most bird species in California’s Sierra Nevadas have altered their ranges during the last century in response to changes in temperature and rainfall

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/47330/title/sp_birds_2up.jpg

 

[Wangler]

mHaze pontificated


NASA OBSERVEDsnip

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35952

Which makes mHaze's imagination a fail...

DogB yes absolutely the mass of the atmosphere will rise...damn energy transforms again.....always raising their ugly thunderheads....

••

Critters still restless too..common sense there....not like some silly apes..



http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/47330/title/sp_birds_2up.jpg

So their data showed that warm air holds more water?

Whodathunkit!

What exactly is the point?

 

[Wangler]

Critters still restless too..common sense there....not like some silly apes..

Critters have been restless since the first single celled organisms popped up.



Climate will change, despite us silly apes, and critters will be restless about it.

Again, what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[Wangler]

Since the concentrations of the greenhouse gas must spontaneously adjust to changes in the concentrations of other greenhouse gases in order to maintain a constant optical depth, the change in the mass of the atmosphere depends on the amount of increase or decrease of each gas. The calculation of the net change in atmospheric mass for the various combinations of changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases is left as an exercise for the reader.

They spontaneously adjust?

 

[McHrozni]

It's been a long time since I took a chemistry class, but wouldn't reducing the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere through increasing the precipitation rate lower the partial pressure of water vapor below the saturation vapor pressure and cause an increase in the rate of evaporation?

Dynamic balances can be real ... prostitutes

McHrozni

 

[Dancing David]

Fixed it for you.


Nobody passes a law because they're concerned about shipping or landfill costs. That's the kind of thing capitalism does best.

Wow, that is why we passed it here. No one wants new landfills, so space is very limited.

ETA: I think we are agreeing.

 

[Dancing David]

Yesterday, I went outside with two pennies in my pocket. That's right, 2 whole cents. I looked on the ground, and to my surprise I found another penny.

Just at that very instant in time, my immediate net worth on my person increased 33% percent! Isn't that unbelievable?!? By finding one penny and placing it in my pocket, I now had 50% more money than I did before!!!

However, right now I've got about $22,000 cash in my savings account. So, my total net worth increase was so minuscule that it was almost meaningfully incalculable.

I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli, not Mark Twain, that said... "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

~Dr. Imago

And this has what to do with the data record as presented in so many places?

 

[macdoc]

Wangler- read posts in context - mHaze was trying to slip that there could not be a global feedback for water vapour - he could not imagine one.

NASA in the meantime OBSERVED the increase in water vapour load which doubles the C02 forcing = his unimaginable mechanism OBSERVED which verified what the models showed.

•••

Climate does not shift without forcing - and multiple species ranges don't change in short periods, the tropics don't expand in a few decades. We're not talking thousands of years here we're talking decades.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16516-drought-warning-as-the-tropics-expand.html

At some point pull the head out of the denial sand and recognize we are conducting a dangerous experiment with the climate and atmosphere - some of the consequences of which are observable now.

That would be the point ....

 

[mhaze]

mHaze pontificated

NASA OBSERVEDsnip

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35952

Which makes mHaze's imagination a fail...
....

Ahh..., you've gone and looked up some critiques on the subject (without quoting your sources). Others disagree with Dessler, in the published literature.

First, the "pontifications" you mention are not mine, but quotes from the paper in response to questions asked. That is called "replying".

Second, you seem rather block headed in ignoring that the subject in question - specific humidity- has already been noted in this thread to have been a subject of an ongoing two year discussion...and which I introduced in my introductory post -

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=556

Third, your stolen linkie can be ignored for simple reasons (also iirc, linked through in my original post):

http://landshape.org/enm/dessler-zhang-and-yang-fail-significance-tests/
the alternative hypothesis, that water-vapor feedback is significantly greater than zero, falls short of the conventional 95% confidence level. The probability the results arose by chance is high, largely due to a methodology relying on one anomalous year as a reference point. Therefore Dessler et al. 2008 provides no credible justification for claims

As follows.

q<-c(2.1,2.69,1.77,2.691,0.94)
rt<-c(2.13,2.12,1.81,2.29,1.69)

calc<-function(q,p) {
s<-sd(q)
n<-length(q)
m<-length(p)
snm<- sqrt((((n-1)*s^2 + ((m-1)*s^2))/(n+m-2)))
snmx<-snm*sqrt(1/n+1/m)
t<-(mean(q)-mean(p))/snmx
k<-kruskal.test(list(q,c(0)))
w<-wilcox.test(q,c(0))
d<-data.frame(cbind(c("t test","Kruskal","Wilcox"),c(dt(t,4),k$p.value,w$p.value)))
d
}

print(calc(q,0))
​

So macdoc. You've discovered nothing, missed almost everything, and reasoned out a bridge from nowhere, while hiding your sources.

Cheers!

POSTSCRIPT: Or as I think it was Wrangler who noted:

IS TOO!!!!

 

[G O R T]

In this limited scenario, application and removal of a forcing do not have the same result.

Flat out wrong, and a stunning example of not even knowing what a linear system is.

I see that trying to keep statements relatively simple allows you to wax theoretical in directions unrelated to the actual discussion. For some reason this also causes outbursts of insults. Curious.

Back to the basics.

Consider the Earth while somewhere in the middle of its recent active temperature range:

When increased insolation rises from 100 units to 101 units the average global temperature rises (let's say 1%) and so releases more CO2, that CO2 increases the gain on all 101 units of insolation. If at this point the insolation falls back to 100 units, that increased gain on those 100 units still exists. If we say that the increased gain was 1% then those 100 units now have the same effect that 101 units would have had at the start. The reduction in insolation does not reduce temperatures because the gain has increased, and the gain cannot fall untill something forces the temperature back down.

If you have a problem with this example please EXPLAIN your reasoning.

 

[Wangler]

POSTSCRIPT: Or as I think it was Wrangler who noted:

IS TOO!!!!

For the record, wasn't me!

 

[Wangler]

NASA in the meantime OBSERVED the increase in water vapour load which doubles the C02 forcing = his unimaginable mechanism OBSERVED which verified what the models showed.

From the article you posted:

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

They didn't observe any increase which doubles CO2 forcing...they observed water vapour reacting to changes in temperature, which leads them to think that the forcing could be doubling.

 

[lomiller]

So their data showed that warm air holds more water?

Whodathunkit!

What exactly is the point?

Have you not been reading the thread? mhaze has spent the last page claiming it doesn't.

 

[mhaze]

From the article you posted:

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

They didn't observe any increase which doubles CO2 forcing...they observed water vapour reacting to changes in temperature, which leads them to think that the forcing could be doubling.

That's actually a point I missed but you are right. Macdoc did not quote their "scientific conclusions" but sort of a soapbox opinion that they certainly have the right to put in their article. I only delt with the scientific conclusion....stupid me....

Have you not been reading the thread? mhaze has spent the last page claiming it doesn't.

Ahhh....before confusing you with more reality on your advanced misunderstanding, would you like to answer GORT's question?

Then we can proceed to optical depth, specific humidity at various levels, and more advanced topics. These have big numbers, like 850. GORT's post used as i recall, only 100 and 1.

 

[lomiller]

If you have a problem with this example please EXPLAIN your reasoning.

The problem is that you don’t know the difference between closed and open loop properties and haven’t bothered to try and see if the math backs up your assumptions.

For a positive feedback loop (LTI or within a range that can be approximated as LTI) the response to a change in input is:

Ochange = Ichange * [A/(1-A*B)]
where A is the open loop gain and B is the feedback factor

This is a well documented formula that can be found in any introductory textbook on system theory.

In your example you erroneously base the effect of CO2 on the system input rather then the system output. It’s a feedback element which means it samples the system output and adds/subtracts to the system input based on it. This is what it should look like drawn out properly.

- Insolation (a) goes up from 100 W to 101 W which creates a 1W energy imbalance
- The forward gain is 1deg/W giving a 1 deg increase in T
- The increase in T releases enough CO2 to reduce outgoing energy by 0.5W creating it’s own 0.5W imbalance
- this causes a further 0.5 deg of warming, which releases more CO2, which causes another 0.25W imbalance.
- etc etc

Each iteration of the loop adds a term to the series that represents the final change in T

T = Tstart + 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 + …

You can work it out by hand or computer to find out that the series converges to an increase of 2 deg. Alternatively you can use the formula I gave above.

Now reverse it
- Insolation (a) goes up from 101 W to 100 W which creates a -1W energy imbalance
- The forward gain is 1deg/W giving a 1 deg decrease in T
- The decrease in T causes the absorption of enough CO2 to increase outgoing energy by 0.5W creating it’s own -0.5W imbalance
- this causes a further 0.5 deg of cooling, which causes the absorption of more CO2, which causes another -0.25W imbalance.
- etc etc
T = Tstart – 1 – 0.5 – 0.25 – 0.125 -…

Again the series converges to Tstart – 2 deg.