Global warming

[mhaze]

We know that the air is warmer, and we know that warmer air holds more water, so unless there is some other link between greenhouse gases and air moisture then this statement makes no sense. We expect to find more moisture in the atmosphere because the air is warmer, this is true regardless of how the air got to be warmer.

If this is true, if there is no other mechanism in the system to moderate or reverse this "positive feedback", then why isn't our climate like Venus due to a runaway greenhouse effect from the last warming period from 1500 years ago?

This isn't the first time the Earth has been this warm. If the warming causes the ice caps to melt, releases trapped CO2 in the permafrost, releases methane trapped under the sea, and all these countless other effects that feed this loop, then life should have ended many times over.

That I've never seen an adequate answer to this question is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical of global warming theories.

Indeed, this simple everyday reality - that the water cycle releases heat - seems to be lost on the warmers. And then they escape into arm waving about "Intensity of severe weather events has increased".

No, it hasn't. Check this.

Is there a relation between Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming in Australia?

Nott, J., J. Haig, H. Neil, and D. Gillieson. 2007. Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 255, 367–372.

A team of scientists from institutions in Australia and New Zealand figured a way to do it, and here is the trick. The water that condenses in the clouds of tropical cyclones is slightly different from the water that forms in regular tropical clouds. Due to the enormous amount of water in a tropical cyclone and the height at which water condenses, the water is depleted in a particular isotope of oxygen (called the "oxygen 18 isotope" and denoted as "δ18O"). The Nott et al. team explain "An isotope gradient occurs across the cyclone with the eye wall region experiencing lowest levels of δ18O and low levels also occur within the zones of uplifted air around the cyclone known as spiral bands." It is likely that the most intense tropical cyclones will have "cloud tops at greater altitude around the eye and in spiral bands. The longevity of the system and hence the amount of rain that has occurred prior to the system crossing the coast also plays a role in the extent of isotope depletion." So if we had a water sample from each event, we could examine the δ18O level and have an index of the severity of the storm – finding the water samples sounds like a problem.

They estimate tropical cyclone intensity from AD 1226 to AD 2003, and global warmers will not be happy.

Nott et al. writes "it is clear that the period between AD 1600 to 1800 had many more intense or hazardous cyclones impacting the site than the post AD 1800 period. Seven events that were more intense/hazardous than the 1911 event occurred during this 200 yr period. Indeed the cyclone registering the lowest isotope difference value, hence the most intense or hazardous, of the entire record occurred here during this time."

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446f3ba6abea5d.jpg

Indeed, this simple everyday reality - that the water cycle releases heat - seems to be lost on the warmers. And then they escape into arm waving about "Intensity of severe weather events has increased".

No, it hasn't. Check this.

Is there a relation between Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming in Australia?

Nott, J., J. Haig, H. Neil, and D. Gillieson. 2007. Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 255, 367–372.

A team of scientists from institutions in Australia and New Zealand figured a way to do it, and here is the trick. The water that condenses in the clouds of tropical cyclones is slightly different from the water that forms in regular tropical clouds. Due to the enormous amount of water in a tropical cyclone and the height at which water condenses, the water is depleted in a particular isotope of oxygen (called the "oxygen 18 isotope" and denoted as "δ18O"). The Nott et al. team explain "An isotope gradient occurs across the cyclone with the eye wall region experiencing lowest levels of δ18O and low levels also occur within the zones of uplifted air around the cyclone known as spiral bands." It is likely that the most intense tropical cyclones will have "cloud tops at greater altitude around the eye and in spiral bands. The longevity of the system and hence the amount of rain that has occurred prior to the system crossing the coast also plays a role in the extent of isotope depletion." So if we had a water sample from each event, we could examine the δ18O level and have an index of the severity of the storm – finding the water samples sounds like a problem.

They estimate tropical cyclone intensity from AD 1226 to AD 2003, and global warmers will not be happy.

Nott et al. writes "it is clear that the period between AD 1600 to 1800 had many more intense or hazardous cyclones impacting the site than the post AD 1800 period. Seven events that were more intense/hazardous than the 1911 event occurred during this 200 yr period. Indeed the cyclone registering the lowest isotope difference value, hence the most intense or hazardous, of the entire record occurred here during this time."

That aint a willy willy, thats a willy willy.

 

[BobK]

The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change.

I'd be amazed if they could explain it. Last I knew our atmosphere has three dimensions. (kg/m²) is two dimensional. I would find it astonishing if they could find any three dimensional content contained within a two dimensional area. Is there some alternate universe I haven't heard about?

 

[a_unique_person]

I'd be amazed if they could explain it. Last I knew our atmosphere has three dimensions. (kg/m²) is two dimensional. I would find it astonishing if they could find any three dimensional content contained within a two dimensional area. Is there some alternate universe I haven't heard about?

It appears they are referring to per m2 of the earth's surface, which is quite valid. If they were referring to per m3, the figures would make no sense at all.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nexus6 on McIntyre.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-barrel.html

 

[Locri]

Life is not about your ride. Really. At your age it might seem to matter enormously, but it's really not the issue.

I'm going to try to say this in the most polite way I possibly can, but PLEASE get over your "I'm older therefore I know more/am wiser than you" mentality.

And I think you are missing the point of his posting entirely... it's not so much the "ride" that he's interested in but just rather saying that most of the people in this thread (if not all) seem to be either specifically at one extreme or the other.

 

[Locri]

Great! So what are the mechanisms that temper this feedback loop?

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Great! So what are the mechanisms that temper this feedback loop?

Post 1326.

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

Post 1326.

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326.

 

[mhaze]

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

I provided an answer four or five posts back, somewhat non-technical. Were you looking for something different? Outside of that, I agree completely with your comments and frustration.

Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner?

It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents excess heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. That heat is deposited in the middle and upper tropopshere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of then produce precipitation.

 

[mhaze]

Post 1326.
Post 1326.
The statement that the positive feedback effect...(nonsense snipped)
+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326.

With all due respect, Safekeeper, typing "Words" like "Positive feedback" is not descriptive of the process. Go back and read about Positive and negative feedback. Here is just one fundamental issue from our friend Wikipedia.

Does it apply to climate? Can you draw the feedback loops and assign values to them? How do you prove that a given feedback is positive or negative?


Nyquist stability criterion

The Nyquist stability criterion, named for Harry Nyquist, provides a simple test for stability of a closed-loop control system by examining the open-loop system's Nyquist plot. Stability of the closed-loop control system may be determined directly by computing the poles of the closed-loop transfer function. In contrast, the Nyquist stability criterion allows stability to be determined without computing the closed-loop poles.

 

[mhaze]

Post 1326.

Post 1326.

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326.

New Challenge for AGW Believers

4. Given the presumption (unproven) that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased warming, show that the water cycle, including effects of clouds, causes a net positive feedback on the CO2 effect as opposed to a negative feedback on the CO2 effect.

 

[Mycroft]

Post 1326.

Post 1326.

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326.

Okay, so what are the limits of this feedback?

 

[Mycroft]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446f3b8d086a50.jpg[/qimg]
Perhaps this discussion by Christy will help as a introduction to why cloud and precipitation systems operate as a negative, not a positive feedback.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner?

It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents excess heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. That heat is deposited in the middle and upper tropopshere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of then produce precipitation.

I believe it can be demonstrated that precipitation systems ultimately control most of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Most of the atmosphere (the lower 80%, called the troposphere) is continuously being recycled through precipitation systems (see Fig. 7), on a time scale of weeks. Winds in the troposphere's 'boundary layer' pick up water vapor that has been evaporated from the surface, and then transport this vapor to precipitation systems, where an equal amount of vapor (on average) is removed as rain or snow.

Partly because precipitation systems cover only several percent of the Earth's surface at any given time, even most climate researchers do not appreciate the controlling influence these systems have on the climate system. All of the humid air flowing into precipitation systems in the lower troposphere ends up flowing out of those same systems, mostly in the middle and upper troposphere. (The only exception is thunderstorm downdrafts, which you have likely experienced before). That air flowing out has moisture (water vapor and cloud) amounts that are controlled by precipitation processes within the systems. This constitutes the direct effect that precipitation systems have on the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

Partly because precipitation systems cover only several percent of the Earth's surface at any given time, even most climate researchers do not appreciate the controlling influence these systems have on the climate system. All of the humid air flowing into precipitation systems in the lower troposphere ends up flowing out of those same systems, mostly in the middle and upper troposphere. (The only exception is thunderstorm downdrafts, which you have likely experienced before). That air flowing out has moisture (water vapor and cloud) amounts that are controlled by precipitation processes within the systems. This constitutes the direct effect that precipitation systems have on the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

1. Detecting Tropical Cyclones Using AMSU
2. Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
3. Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds
4. Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat Roy Spencer revised Aug. 9, 2007
5. Star Search by Roy Spencer
6. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
7. Spencer, Roy W.. "NOT THAT SIMPLE / GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW", New York Post, 2007-02-26. Retrieved on 2007-04-07.
8. Spencer, Roy W. (2007-03-19). STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (PDF). House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Retrieved on 2007-03-0

I'm not going to read all your links, but if I understand your point correctly you're just saying that increased water vapor in the air leads to more heat being radiated back into space because the water vapor carries it up to the troposphere?

If that's so, what about the increased heat retention of water vapor in the atmosphere?

 

[Locri]

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

And you know what, I completely agree with you. It is nonsense to think that it's permanent. I don't think it is and no one else should. But the fact remains that if it isn't a permanent effect, there is obviously some negative feedbacks and other balancing mechanisms in place that have gone on for several millions of years that most of the AGW people seem to completely ignore.

 

[Locri]

I provided an answer four or five posts back, somewhat non-technical. Were you looking for something different? Outside of that, I agree completely with your comments and frustration.

[Link removed due to filter, see original post]
Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner?
It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents excess heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. That heat is deposited in the middle and upper tropopshere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of then produce precipitation.

Ahh, yes, I did miss that post. Sorry. Although I would probably add that there is easily the chance for many other things going on that contribute to the climate balancing. Then again, I was generally aiming my comment towards the other side of the argument as I feel that a lack of understanding of climate feedbacks and the climate system as a whole seems to be a very weak point in the AGW argument.

 

[a_unique_person]

With all due respect, Safekeeper, typing "Words" like "Positive feedback" is not descriptive of the process. Go back and read about Positive and negative feedback. Here is just one fundamental issue from our friend Wikipedia.

Does it apply to climate? Can you draw the feedback loops and assign values to them? How do you prove that a given feedback is positive or negative?


Nyquist stability criterion

The Nyquist stability criterion, named for Harry Nyquist, provides a simple test for stability of a closed-loop control system by examining the open-loop system's Nyquist plot. Stability of the closed-loop control system may be determined directly by computing the poles of the closed-loop transfer function. In contrast, the Nyquist stability criterion allows stability to be determined without computing the closed-loop poles.

When a microphone feeds back, it doesn't keep on getting louder forever, it's limited by the power of the amplifier. When the climate has feedbacks, it's limited by the power coming from the sun, or the feedback mechanism itself runs out. Albedo changes when ice melts, causing the earth to absorb more radiation, rather than reflect it. When all the ice is gone, that's the end of that feedback mechanism. It's all also limited by the amount of radiation from the sun in the first place.

 

[a_unique_person]

And you know what, I completely agree with you. It is nonsense to think that it's permanent. I don't think it is and no one else should. But the fact remains that if it isn't a permanent effect, there is obviously some negative feedbacks and other balancing mechanisms in place that have gone on for several millions of years that most of the AGW people seem to completely ignore.

But the earth will change permanently, and it is a rapid change in geological terms. From a thermodynamic point of view, rapid change = chaos. Previous rapid changes have seen mass extinctions. We, collectively, will see massive changes needed in our infrastructure. The global wheat crop isn't doing too well, this year, for example.

We have seen the Asian economic meltdown come and go, and the rest of the world carried on, ditto 9/11, and other massive hits on the earths economic systems. This will affect all countries in the world, at the same time.

It will mean many species, such as polar bears being the most obvious ones, go extinct. Many other species will need to move to cooler climates, or adapt. Adaptation takes time, and the species won't have hat. Man now controls much of the land that blocks the way for species migration.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

You want answers from research scientists into the details of the matter? Read the IPCC report. If that doesn't have enough detail for you, try asking a question at Realclimate.

We are just interested amateurs here.

 

[a_unique_person]

Look what's the most important topic for the Australian election this year.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22461097-601,00.html

THE unprecedented crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin has propelled water to the top of the political agenda, with John Howard and Kevin Rudd battling to convince voters they can alleviate the devastating effects of Australia's prolonged drought.
The Prime Minister yesterday promised more drought relief for farmers, with Peter Costello outlining a controversial solution for urban water shortages -- a desalination plant for every capital city.
And Kevin Rudd used his trip to Walgett in northwest NSW to promote a $60 million strategy to help farmers prepare for the effects of climate change.
Under the Howard rescue plan -- to be considered by cabinet next week -- irrigators and communities suffering through record-breaking drought in the Murray-Darling Basin will receive extra support, probably in a two-phase package. It will include changes to exceptional circumstances drought assistance to make it easier for farmers -- particularly those who rely on irrigation -- to access immediate financial relief.
The package is also likely to include longer-term measures targeted at communities along the Murray that have received little or no water allocations this season and are watching their permanent plantings and crops die.
Farmers predict that if all the permanent plantings in the basin die it will cost up to $4 billion to replace them and the lost income could total $8 billion.

There are so many complaints about the cost of preventing climate change, but little appreciation of the cost of coping with it. The figures mentioned are just the dollars to deal with the farmers. A far bigger cost will be the increased cost of food.

 

[mhaze]

Look what's the most important topic for the Australian election this year.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22461097-601,00.html

There are so many complaints about the cost of preventing climate change, but little appreciation of the cost of coping with it. The figures mentioned are just the dollars to deal with the farmers. A far bigger cost will be the increased cost of food.

Yes, your politicians are really working the fear factors on these myths.

AUP you did not answer a question I posed a while back.

What is the name of the foreign company that is making $10-15B off of your supposed need for desalination plants?
​

There may be an interesting story there...