Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I found this rather amusing claim on another board:

The first is radiational cooling by CO2 due to flux divergence with height, the second is if any water vapor was vaporized from CO2, the boundary radiation near the top increases emission at wavelengths greater than CO2 and causes additional, strong radiational cooling, thus REDUCING water vapors optical depth by moist convection, increased precipitation and increased radiational cooling off of cloud tops.
Click to expand...
 
It's a word salad. I wonder what did this person want to say by "any water vapor was vaporized from CO2", and the paragraph is constructed as if cause and consequence were swapped but, what was this person replying to or describing? "CO2 *and* summer storms"?
 
r-j said:
There is no claim in what you quoted. It sounds like you left out the claim, and just posted the explanations.

What was the claim?
Click to expand...

I think that he was trying to claim that this paper

http://www.earth.huji.ac.il/data/File/chaimg/GWetal13.pdf

describes a negative feedback mechanism in which warming in the lower troposphere leads to more clouds and precipitation which in turn leads to a lower water vapor content which means a reduction in total GHG. What he apparently failed to grasp is that the lower water vapor content that the study found was IN THE STRATOSPHERE and led to cooling IN THE STRATOSPHERE.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
I think that he was trying to claim that this paper

http://www.earth.huji.ac.il/data/File/chaimg/GWetal13.pdf

describes a negative feedback mechanism in which warming in the lower troposphere leads to more clouds and precipitation which in turn leads to a lower water vapor content which means a reduction in total GHG.
Click to expand...

How about a link so anybody can check for themselves? "I think that he was trying to claim" isn't very scientific.

http://www.earth.huji.ac.il/data/File/chaimg/GWetal13.pdf

That's quite an interesting paper. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting paper, it is largely dealing with the model they constructed, their attempts to compare it with the observational record and tweak their model to better fit the observational record. I will be more interested to read follow ups on their modeling efforts. Any natural effect that might, even in theory, moderate or ameliorate some of the problems of our CO2 dumping in the atmosphere would be fantastic news, even if, as this study seems to indicate, the effect is limited to certain specific and transitory sets of conditions. as is clear from their paper, however, there are some problems with both their model and their observational data that need to be cleaned up before we can even really decide how well their model represents reality, yet alone the degree that this process may actually blunt some of the immediate effects of CO2 in the specific areas and circumstances:

it is impossible to verify the model’s simulation of the equatorial water
vapor trend. The observational record is inconsistent over this period: Schoeberl et al. [2012]find that satellite and station based water vapor trends are inconsistent over the 1993-2010period, and reanalysis products differ on the sign of the trends as well.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
This is an interesting paper, it is largely dealing with the model they constructed, their attempts to compare it with the observational record and tweak their model to better fit the observational record. I will be more interested to read follow ups on their modeling efforts. Any natural effect that might, even in theory, moderate or ameliorate some of the problems of our CO2 dumping in the atmosphere would be fantastic news, even if, as this study seems to indicate, the effect is limited to certain specific and transitory sets of conditions. as is clear from their paper, however, there are some problems with both their model and their observational data that need to be cleaned up before we can even really decide how well their model represents reality, yet alone the degree that this process may actually blunt some of the immediate effects of CO2 in the specific areas and circumstances:
Click to expand...

The effect would be necessarily limited to the tropics. Though I just skimmed through the paper, I'm guessing that they didn't add in the warming due to the compensating subsidence, as the compensating subsiding air warms at the dry adiabatic lapse rate while the air in the moist convective plume cools at the smaller moist adiabatic lapse rate.

climatedepot.com also tried to foist this paper as spelling the death knell for AGW:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02...-journal-of-geophysical-research-atmospheres/
 
There's always something spelling the death knell of AGW.
 
Freed from the ridiculous assumptions about Earth’s fission rate, we are now able to debate the causes of the periodic fluctuations in fission that are the root cause of the El Nino/La Nina effect. There is an obvious solar cycle trigger to these fission induced ocean temperature changes.
Neutrinos do not leave proxies, but it is highly probable that solar and galactic radiation controls the Earth’s fission rates and that sudden cosmic ray bursts can increase fission and the easily observed outcome of volcanism. It is almost certain that variations in the base state of these radiation forces are the prime climate driver.
Click to expand...
http://www.fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/missing_geothermal_flux.pdf

:dl:

oh my ....somebody let Haig in on this...:rolleyes:
 
Terminal fever I guess..:rolleyes:

In more than 117 years of records, July 2012 stands alone as not only the hottest July on record in the lower 48 United States, but also the hottest of any month on record in that time span. To put it another way, July 2012 was the hottest of more than 1,400 months that we've gone through since 1895.
Click to expand...

uly 2012 was 3.3 degrees above the 20th century average. Ostro puts this in perspective, "While three degrees might not seem like much because temperatures can vary a lot more than that from day to day, it’s significant when averaged over a whole month, and particularly so in the summer when temperatures typically have less variation than at other times of year.”
Click to expand...

http://www.weather.com/news/noaa-report-july-20120808

Wonder what the temp will be 86 years out.??...:boggled:
 
Looks like the forum is shutting down next week, I just wanted to acknowledge those here whom I consider friends and fellow forum members. Feel free to contact me through PM and I will share email address to those who do not have it. It has been fun, I will miss the discussions!
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
If you think that those were funny, try this one (from http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php#A):
Click to expand...

You see? That CO2 seepage by weight happens in a world where notions experience Brownian motion within the thinker's brain. I'm surprise that the intellectual powerhouse that thought those notions wouldn't have added "and as CO2 is much heavier than H2O, carbon dioxide sinks to the bottom of the oceans".

Anyway, both CO2 and O2 concentrations do vary with altitude.
 
Trakar said:
Looks like the forum is shutting down next week, I just wanted to acknowledge those here whom I consider friends and fellow forum members. Feel free to contact me through PM and I will share email address to those who do not have it. It has been fun, I will miss the discussions!
Click to expand...

macdoc said:
I heard it was being shifted - contact Icerat - he's involved. Just google macdoc anyone that wants to reach me or PM

The science forum at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/
is okay too...use your same nick.

See you there at least til the dust settles.
Click to expand...

Seems, it's not that bad ...

The time for change has come. The long-running JREF online Forum at forums.randi.org is soon to head off on its own.

JREF staff is in the midst of arranging a transition to a new owner. Various people are currently working to preserve the integrity of the forum content to the greatest extent possible with the privacy concerns of users in mind.

The JREF still retains ownership of the forum at this point.

This does not affect the randi.org website.

Due to some administrative issues that are causing problems and confusion, JREF board member Rick Adams will be taking administrative control of the Forums. This will result in temporary suspension of other admin activity, including registering new Forum users, while the confusion between administrator roles is sorted out. After the Forum is restarted, hopefully within a few hours, all moderator and posting capabilities should resume as usual and you can continue posting. It is anticipated this admin hold will last a day or two.

Further information will follow as progress occurs.
Click to expand...
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/2384-regarding-the-jref-forum-status.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom