| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2 from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not argument about it, it is basic physics.
So, that's increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, we expect to get 1.2 C. We are currently at 400. So where, you might ask, do the figures of 4C, or 3C come from? Well they are due to positive feedbacks. What happened was this, when the fed the 1.2C per 100% into the climate models in the late 90s they couldn't recreate the previous 30 years unless they added a big positive feedback which multiplied that 1.2 C up to 4 C. The feedback they chose was simplistic. Water Vapour. A powerful GH gas and with a simplistic mechanism chosen, the 'as it gets warmer, more water evaporates' they had their mechanism. Of course the system is far more complex than this, WV is an excellent heat transport to the upper atmosphere, but this can be verified by checking just what WV has done over the last 30 years or so. For that we can go to NASA: http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content...3/NVAP_pwv.jpg Ah. WV has actually fallen. Hm, now that means WV is a negative feedback, and actually reduces that 1.2 to something like 1 C. We can actually also verify this with experimental data because have already added 46% more CO2 to the atmosphere! So what did we get for this 46%? We got 0.7 C. Now of course the effect of CO2 is inverse log, the more you add, the less effect you get, so for almost half the CO2 increase we have had over half the temperature increase. So even if we attribute ALL that 0.7 C to CO2, and no one does that, we are bang on line to get to 1C for 100%. What does all this mean? Well the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 C is attainable without limiting CO2 production. A temperature rise of 2C has been chosen because it is the limit at which supposed climate change becomes dangerous. In limiting it to 1C climate change is not dangerous, all we have is a slight rise in temperature. A rise less than that which we have already seen since the depths of the little ice age. And we have not even got to 1C yet! So, not only are these storms NOT due to climate change, at 0.7 C climate cant have changed that much, unless the IPCC is completely wrong, and future warming is also not a problem. These storms are just normal. The kind of thing we get every 50 or 100 years. The kind of thing that created the flood plains in the first place that we see flooded today. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 11:33:32 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article , matt_sykes writes These storms are just normal. The kind of thing we get every 50 or 100 years. The kind of thing that created the flood plains in the first place that we see flooded today. Storms can create floods, but they can't create flood plains. Those were created by geomorphology. -- Malcolm If you want to be really pedantic a flood plain IS geomorphology, as is an other change of the land. Anyway, that's digressing from the topic. The fact is that GW can not be responsible since we are not at the limit for dangerous climate change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidin...climate_change (And that's even with the new figure of 1C max, and not the old 2C max). |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
What happened was this, when the fed the 1.2C per 100% into the climate models in the late 90s they couldn't recreate the previous 30 years unless they added a big positive feedback which multiplied that 1.2 C up to 4 C. The feedback they chose was simplistic. Water Vapour. snippage It might be worth having a read of Arrhenius's 1896 paper, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground". http://nsdl.org/sites/classic_articles/Article4.htm Page 263 shows that even at this time it was already well known that relative humidity tends to be conserved - i.e. if temperature rises, absolute humidity also rises, and that of course amplifies the initial warming because of the rise in the water vapour greenhouse effect. It's a straightforward principle of physics, not something invented as a 'fudge' as you seem to be suggesting. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 13:12:40 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article , matt_sykes writes On Monday, 17 February 2014 11:33:32 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: In article , matt_sykes writes These storms are just normal. The kind of thing we get every 50 or 100 years. The kind of thing that created the flood plains in the first place that we see flooded today. Storms can create floods, but they can't create flood plains. Those were created by geomorphology. If you want to be really pedantic a flood plain IS geomorphology, as is an other change of the land. Anyway, that's digressing from the topic. When someone makes such a blatantly wrong claim that storms create flood plains, it throws doubt on everything else they have claimed. Oh yes, I forgot, floods don't come from heavy rain, which doesn't come fro rain storms. How silly of me. And now you've become even more ridiculous by saying that "a flood plain IS geomorphology". For your enlightenment, the ending '-ology' means 'the study of', while 'geo' and 'morph' are, respectively, 'earth' and 'form'. Well well, he actually knows the meaning of the term he used. Can you explain your statement then "flood plains ... were created by geomorphology". Did the study of how the earth changes create flood plains? No doubt rain had nothing to do with it. It was all those scholars wandering about the banks of rivers treading the ground flat! And don't pretend this is pedantry. If you can't get the basics right, then why should anyone believe anything else you write? Ah I see, its the old. "I cant refute a single thing you say about GW and feedbacks so I will pretend you have made an error, by saying storms create rain which creates floods, and then try to switch the subject to ancient greek" avoidance technique. Its not gong to wash Malcom, I have had far too much experience dealing with the likes of Garvey to fall for that lame crap. Now answer the point. If you can. WV is not appositive feedback, dangerous climate change doesn't happen till we reach at least 1 or 2 C, and therefore the recent storms can not be due to CO2. Hmm? Can you do that rather than avoid it? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 13:09:37 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: What happened was this, when the fed the 1.2C per 100% into the climate models in the late 90s they couldn't recreate the previous 30 years unless they added a big positive feedback which multiplied that 1.2 C up to 4 C. The feedback they chose was simplistic. Water Vapour. snippage It might be worth having a read of Arrhenius's 1896 paper, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground". http://nsdl.org/sites/classic_articles/Article4.htm Page 263 shows that even at this time it was already well known that relative humidity tends to be conserved - i.e. if temperature rises, absolute humidity also rises, and that of course amplifies the initial warming because of the rise in the water vapour greenhouse effect. It's a straightforward principle of physics, Didn't I call it simplistic? The fact is that in all of this, you, Arrhenius's and every one else forgets is that the climate is not simple. Anyway, did you even bother to look at the NASA WV graph? Regardless of whatever the surface temperature has done in the last 30years, WV has decreased. Which is a big nail in the coffin of AGW theory as a threat to anything. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 14:32:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
load of BS Storms do create flood plains. Where else does rain come from? Non storms? A 'process of study' is still not gong to create a flood plain, unless you really do think that a load of scholars standing around river banks is enough to tramp the ground flat? Or perhaps you want to retract and say flood plains are not formed by geomorphology? Hmm? Oh, and WV is mote important than CO2. Way more important. If you don't know that its time you did some basic reading up on GH gasses. Oh, and as for 'spouting' all I did was describe the basics of AGW theory. If you are calling that a load of 'spout' I might agree with you. But look, once again Malcom, instead of avoiding the subject, why don't you just admit that WV is not a positive feedback as predicted and that therefore the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C? Can you do that? Can you be a man and admit the science? Or are you gong to pansy around spouting off ancient greek and other diversionary tactics? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 16:32:38 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article , matt_sykes writes On Monday, 17 February 2014 14:32:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: load of BS Storms do create flood plains. Where else does rain come from? Non storms? Storms create floods. What possible mechanism do you imagine is involved for a storm to create an area of low-lying land Who said it has to be low lying. Ever hear of Boscastle? into which a river can overflow at times of excess water flow? Is it the weight of water flattening the land the river flows through? A 'process of study' is still not gong to create a flood plain, unless you really do think that a load of scholars standing around river banks is enough to tramp the ground flat? Or perhaps you want to retract and say flood plains are not formed by geomorphology? Hmm? Read what I wrote about proceesses. Oh, and WV is mote important than CO2. Way more important. If you don't know that its time you did some basic reading up on GH gasses. Water vapour is an important greenhouse effect, it is NOT about climate change. It cannot on its own change the climatre. I didn't say it did, I said it was proposed as a positive feedback to CO2 caused warming. Are you having trouble reading or do you want me to spell it out for you in simpler terms? Oh, and as for 'spouting' all I did was describe the basics of AGW theory. If you are calling that a load of 'spout' I might agree with you. No, I would call it a load of BS! But look, once again Malcom, instead of avoiding the subject, why don't you just admit that WV is not a positive feedback as predicted and that therefore the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C? Can you do that? Can you be a man and admit the science? Or are you gong to pansy around spouting off ancient greek and other diversionary tactics? I disagree. Water vapour is a feedback effect and your contention that the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C is non-credible nonsense. I see, so if WV is a positive feedback, ie, it increases as it gets warmer, then the NASA WV project shows it has cooled since 1988? Is that what you are saying Malcom? Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water. Face facts Malcom, WV hasn't increased, or is NASA wrong and Malcom right? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, February 17, 2014 4:21:50 PM UTC, matt_sykes wrote:
On Monday, 17 February 2014 16:32:38 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: In article , matt_sykes writes On Monday, 17 February 2014 14:32:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: load of BS Storms do create flood plains. Where else does rain come from? Non storms? Storms create floods. What possible mechanism do you imagine is involved for a storm to create an area of low-lying land Who said it has to be low lying. Ever hear of Boscastle? into which a river can overflow at times of excess water flow? Is it the weight of water flattening the land the river flows through? A 'process of study' is still not gong to create a flood plain, unless you really do think that a load of scholars standing around river banks is enough to tramp the ground flat? Or perhaps you want to retract and say flood plains are not formed by geomorphology? Hmm? Read what I wrote about proceesses. Oh, and WV is mote important than CO2. Way more important. If you don't know that its time you did some basic reading up on GH gasses. Water vapour is an important greenhouse effect, it is NOT about climate change. It cannot on its own change the climatre. I didn't say it did, I said it was proposed as a positive feedback to CO2 caused warming. Are you having trouble reading or do you want me to spell it out for you in simpler terms? Oh, and as for 'spouting' all I did was describe the basics of AGW theory. If you are calling that a load of 'spout' I might agree with you. No, I would call it a load of BS! But look, once again Malcom, instead of avoiding the subject, why don't you just admit that WV is not a positive feedback as predicted and that therefore the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C? Can you do that? Can you be a man and admit the science? Or are you gong to pansy around spouting off ancient greek and other diversionary tactics? I disagree. Water vapour is a feedback effect and your contention that the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C is non-credible nonsense. I see, so if WV is a positive feedback, ie, it increases as it gets warmer, then the NASA WV project shows it has cooled since 1988? Is that what you are saying Malcom? Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water. Face facts Malcom, WV hasn't increased, or is NASA wrong and Malcom right? He's found someone else with a brain to answer his drivel, Malcolm, which used to be confined to alt.global-warming, before he decided to try to stalk me (very poorly and he seems to get sidetracked very easily) onto here. I'd counsel you to ignore him. You are not dealing with someone who is in the slightest bit rational - but your decision Malcolm. Good luck. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 17:29:11 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 4:21:50 PM UTC, matt_sykes wrote: On Monday, 17 February 2014 16:32:38 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: In article , matt_sykes writes On Monday, 17 February 2014 14:32:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: load of BS Storms do create flood plains. Where else does rain come from? Non storms? Storms create floods. What possible mechanism do you imagine is involved for a storm to create an area of low-lying land Who said it has to be low lying. Ever hear of Boscastle? into which a river can overflow at times of excess water flow? Is it the weight of water flattening the land the river flows through? A 'process of study' is still not gong to create a flood plain, unless you really do think that a load of scholars standing around river banks is enough to tramp the ground flat? Or perhaps you want to retract and say flood plains are not formed by geomorphology? Hmm? Read what I wrote about proceesses. Oh, and WV is mote important than CO2. Way more important. If you don't know that its time you did some basic reading up on GH gasses. Water vapour is an important greenhouse effect, it is NOT about climate change. It cannot on its own change the climatre. I didn't say it did, I said it was proposed as a positive feedback to CO2 caused warming. Are you having trouble reading or do you want me to spell it out for you in simpler terms? Oh, and as for 'spouting' all I did was describe the basics of AGW theory. If you are calling that a load of 'spout' I might agree with you. No, I would call it a load of BS! But look, once again Malcom, instead of avoiding the subject, why don't you just admit that WV is not a positive feedback as predicted and that therefore the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C? Can you do that? Can you be a man and admit the science? Or are you gong to pansy around spouting off ancient greek and other diversionary tactics? I disagree. Water vapour is a feedback effect and your contention that the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C is non-credible nonsense. I see, so if WV is a positive feedback, ie, it increases as it gets warmer, then the NASA WV project shows it has cooled since 1988? Is that what you are saying Malcom? Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water. Face facts Malcom, WV hasn't increased, or is NASA wrong and Malcom right? He's found someone else with a brain to answer his drivel, Malcolm, which used to be confined to alt.global-warming, before he decided to try to stalk me (very poorly and he seems to get sidetracked very easily) onto here. I'd counsel you to ignore him. You are not dealing with someone who is in the slightest bit rational - but your decision Malcolm. Good luck. Oh, look who has turned up... So Garvey, care to add anything useful to the discussion by refuting NASA WV data or are you just gong to stand there on the side lines casting aspersions? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Regardless of whatever the surface temperature has done in the last 30 years, WV has decreased. Actually atmospheric water vapour has increased and is very strongly correlated with global atmospheric temperature (the black curve): http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/humid2.jpg Credit: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/...an-wet-island/ So the climate is doing what Arrhenius expected it to do, 120-odd years ago. The water vapour feedback approximately doubles the warming impact of CO2 rise. BTW, see if you can figure out why the graph you cited in your comment is misleading. Look at the logarithmic scale of the Y axis for example. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 19:46:03 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Regardless of whatever the surface temperature has done in the last 30 years, WV has decreased. Actually atmospheric water vapour has increased and is very strongly correlated with global atmospheric temperature (the black curve): http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/humid2.jpg Credit: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/...an-wet-island/ So the climate is doing what Arrhenius expected it to do, 120-odd years ago. The water vapour feedback approximately doubles the warming impact of CO2 rise. BTW, see if you can figure out why the graph you cited in your comment is misleading. Look at the logarithmic scale of the Y axis for example. It took you what, 2 days to find a graph that shows WV increasing? I mean there are thousands of papers published all over the world, many of which have poor peer review, or which are based on model predictions, or which are just plain theoretical. Have you checked these three papers to make sure they are valid? Because clearlyt, NASA satellite data, no theory, no process, no modeling, just plain shows that you are wrong and that WV has in fact decreased. So, lets take a look: Dai 2006. COuldnt find his actual paper, but found this desription: http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/s.../slides/Ye.pdf "Water vapor changes There is a large regional variation due to complex local effects, negative relationship is observed in some regions, Dai 2006" And dont forget Dai is station based data, not across the entire atmisphere, like the NASA WV project data is. Willet et al. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2008JCLI2274.1 Its surface humidity again. Oddly though its 20S to 20N shows a big change, yet the tropics have had hardly any warming. Very odd. Quoite unexpected by any theory! I womnt look at BErry and Kent, it is time to eat. But the moral is, just slinging links is not good enough; you need to read to criticise what you are reading. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:41:49 PM UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article , Dawlish writes He's found someone else with a brain to answer his drivel, Malcolm, which used to be confined to alt.global-warming, before he decided to try to stalk me (very poorly and he seems to get sidetracked very easily) onto here. I'd counsel you to ignore him. You are not dealing with someone who is in the slightest bit rational - but your decision Malcolm. Good luck. Thanks, Dawlish. I had realised that I was dealing with a denialist, and, after all a rational AGW denialist is a massive oxymoron :-) Malcolm There is a fuller cv of this one the other thread. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
.... Because clearlyt, NASA satellite data, no theory, no process, no modeling, just plain shows that you are wrong and that WV has in fact decreased. The data shows atmospheric water vapour increasing. Here's another source - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-...eries/humidity The graph you cited in your original post was scaled logarithmically in order to hide this fact. Did you know that the primary 'fingerprint' of AGW is tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling? The author of the graph you cited chose to emphasise the decline in stratospheric water vapour (an expected consequence of the cooling stratosphere), but hide the increase in tropospheric water vapour (an expected consequence of the warming troposphere) by the scaling of the Y axis. Why do you think he did that? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 20:41:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
I had realised that I was dealing with a denialist, Do you actually think that term is helpful to the discussion? What do you suppose I am denying, or is it just a blanket term you can use in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions? I actually do not deny the climate changes nor that CO2 has a role, as I thought would have been fairly obvious by my discussion of climate sensitivity to CO2. So, are we going to get a reasonable discussion from you about WV feedbacks or are you gong to pretend I don't exist? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 20:39:37 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article , matt_sykes writes On Monday, 17 February 2014 16:32:38 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: In article , matt_sykes writes On Monday, 17 February 2014 14:32:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote: load of BS Storms do create flood plains. Where else does rain come from? Non storms? Storms create floods. What possible mechanism do you imagine is involved for a storm to create an area of low-lying land Who said it has to be low lying. Ever hear of Boscastle? Yes, I've been there, and to Lynmouth. I also note the diversionary tactic. Hahahahahahah! YOU mentioned 'low lying land', not to mention ancient Greek, so don't talk to me of diversionary tactics. We were discussing flood plains and how, acccording to you, storms create them. There were certainly severe storms at both Boscastle and Lynmouth and both created floods, but neither created flood plains. Unless you know better, which you don't. into which a river can overflow at times of excess water flow? Is it the weight of water flattening the land the river flows through? A 'process of study' is still not gong to create a flood plain, unless you really do think that a load of scholars standing around river banks is enough to tramp the ground flat? Or perhaps you want to retract and say flood plains are not formed by geomorphology? Hmm? Read what I wrote about proceesses. Oh, and WV is mote important than CO2. Way more important. If you don't know that its time you did some basic reading up on GH gasses. Water vapour is an important greenhouse effect, it is NOT about climate change. It cannot on its own change the climatre. I didn't say it did, I said it was proposed as a positive feedback to CO2 caused warming. Are you having trouble reading or do you want me to spell it out for you in simpler terms? You claimed that CO2, even with 100% more, could only cause a 1C increase No I didn't. I said a 100% increase over pre industrial times. and instead claimed that WV was more important than CO2. You are quite simply wrong. WV is a more important GH gas than CO2 since it is far more abundant. Everyone knows it, why don't you? Oh, and as for 'spouting' all I did was describe the basics of AGW theory. If you are calling that a load of 'spout' I might agree with you. No, I would call it a load of BS! But look, once again Malcom, instead of avoiding the subject, why don't you just admit that WV is not a positive feedback as predicted and that therefore the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C? Can you do that? Can you be a man and admit the science? Or are you gong to pansy around spouting off ancient greek and other diversionary tactics? I disagree. Water vapour is a feedback effect and your contention that the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C is non-credible nonsense. I see, so if WV is a positive feedback, ie, it increases as it gets warmer, then the NASA WV project shows it has cooled since 1988? Is that what you are saying Malcom? No, I'm am saying that your claim that your claim that CO2, even with 100% more, could only cause a 1C increase and instead you claim that WV was more important than CO2 is quite simply wrong. Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water. Which is a nonsense claim which anyone who knows anything about the subject, rather than someone who deliberately ignores the science that they don't like, knows is BS. You are saying NASA WV data is BS are you? You want to go on the record as saying that do you? Face facts Malcom, WV hasn't increased, or is NASA wrong and Malcom right? Your claim that CO2, even with 100% more, could only cause a 1C increase and instead you claim that WV was more important than CO2 is quite simply wrong and not borne about by the facts. No, 100% from pre industrial will directly cause 1.2 C, but WV is clearly reducing, unless you think NASA are lying, in which case it is a negative feedback. In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Or do you deny empirical data as well as NASA? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Monday, 17 February 2014 22:49:26 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: ... Because clearlyt, NASA satellite data, no theory, no process, no modeling, just plain shows that you are wrong and that WV has in fact decreased. The data shows atmospheric water vapour increasing. Here's another source - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-...eries/humidity Again, surface station data, and Dai (2006 is the paper I assume you are referring to here) found all sorts of inconsistencies. The graph you cited in your original post was scaled logarithmically in order to hide this fact. No, it is the entire troposphere, not just surface data. If you actually look at the 1000 mb data in the graph I linked you might detect a slight trend which is not inconsistent with your shortened and expanded y axis graph above. Did you know that the primary 'fingerprint' of AGW is tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling? The author of the graph you cited chose to emphasise the decline in stratospheric water vapour The graph doesn't have stratospheric data, it stops at 300 mb. Why do you think he did that? He didn't, you imagined it. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
.... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is like turning up the central heating thermostat in your home - it doesn't instantly reach the new higher temperature, because the radiators take time to feed in all the additional heat required to bring it up to that temperature. In the case of the Earth's climate, we've created an energy imbalance by reducing infrared emission to space, but it takes time for the oceans to warm up enough to once again balance insolation. The standard back-of-the-envelope figure is that for a linear climate forcing, the transient warming will be around 60% of equilibrium warming for that forcing. The net climate forcing (anthropogenic + natural) to date is around 1.7W/m² and fast feedback climate sensitivity is around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm, so we would expect to see around 1.7 * 0.75 = 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium and 1.7 * 0.75 * 0.6 = 0.8°C today, which is pretty much exactly the warming that we have seen. If you're arguing for something lower than 1.2°C per doubling of atmospheric CO₂ then you would only expect to have seen, at the very most, 1.7 * 0.3 * 0.6 = 0.3°C of global warming - clearly well below what has been observed. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
If you actually look at the 1000 mb data in the graph I linked you might detect a slight trend which is not inconsistent with your shortened and expanded y axis graph above. Yes, that's right. As you probably know, atmospheric water vapour is largely concentrated in the lower troposphere - http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress...centration.png The logarithmic scale of the graph you cited emphasises the very small decline in water vapour at high altitude and effectively hides the much larger increase of water vapour in the lower troposhere, which of course is what has the largest impact on the greenhouse effect. You have to wonder about the motivation of the author for displaying it in this misleading way. The graph doesn't have stratospheric data, it stops at 300 mb. Yes you're right about that, thanks. I mis-remembered the heights for those pressure layers. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:17:28 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote: As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2 from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not argument about it, it is basic physics. We do? I don't. But then I supposed it's all changed since I were a lad. ". . . changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth [sic] between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century." That's from "Understanding Climate Change - A Program for Action" published in 1975 (March). As for the forecast of a 0.5C rise in temperature by the end of the century, it was actually 0.48C (using 11-year smoothing). Pretty damn close, I'd say. Taking the longer view, a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 would account for a 1.03C rise in temperature from 1866 to 2007 (mid-points of 11-year means). The actual rise was 0.87C. So, that's increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, we expect to get 1.2 C. We are currently at 400. Nope. We expect a further rise of at least 1.75C from now to 2076 when we reach 560ppm, assuming a constant rise (based on rate of increase of last ten years) in CO2 from now on. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. (I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons) So you cant 'store heat' in some handy little heat sink somewhere and have it later jump out on the earth and cause warming. It just isn't physically possible. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given climate. There is always a lag between maximum insolation and average warmest day and in winter between minimum insolation and coldest day. The Earth has a significant heat capacity, as do the oceans and the atmosphere by comparison a small one. The difference in heat capacity between air, land and sea drives sea breezes in summer when the land warms up much faster than the sea. (I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons) You mean like with melting ice or boiling water? Ice and snow is actually an important driver for global climate as the insolation at 70N is a very good predictor of ice ages. If the snow doesn't melt back to the usual snowline each year then every year more land is covered with brilliant white snow and reflects more heat away into space. Conversely if every year there is less ice then more heat is absorbed at higher latitudes and the ice continues on average to retreat. What we have at present is glaciers in retreat and permafrost that is failing leading to difficulties with cable car pylons in the Alps. So you cant 'store heat' in some handy little heat sink somewhere and have it later jump out on the earth and cause warming. It just isn't physically possible. You can by very slightly warming up kilometre deep oceans causing them to expand and sea levels to rise. And we are in really deep **** if we manage to destabilise the clathrates on the sea bed or bulk methane trapped in the Siberian tundra permafrost at some point. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) matt_sykes wrote: As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2 from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not argument about it, it is basic physics. We do? I don't. But then I supposed it's all changed since I were a lad. ". . . changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth [sic] between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century." That's from "Understanding Climate Change - A Program for Action" published in 1975 (March). As for the forecast of a 0.5C rise in temperature by the end of the century, it was actually 0.48C (using 11-year smoothing). Pretty damn close, I'd say. Taking the longer view, a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 would account for a 1.03C rise in temperature from 1866 to 2007 (mid-points of 11-year means). The actual rise was 0.87C. Nearer 0.6 C http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007 So, that's increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, we expect to get 1.2 C. We are currently at 400. Nope. We expect a further rise of at least 1.75C from now to 2076 when we reach 560ppm, assuming a constant rise (based on rate of increase of last ten years) in CO2 from now on. You know of course the effect of CO2 is inverse log? No. Oh, Well you do now. You cant extend a rate from the first 50% into the second. Oh, and as for last ten years of warming? Care to explain how we are gong to get ANY increase based on this?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:2004/to:2014 |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 16:37:13 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given climate. Actually it isn't. What you have is constant heat, pouring into matter, and it gets hotter and hotter, and as the sun goes past the zenith, the amount of heat pouring in gets less and less until it reaches the point at which the matter can release heat as quickly as it absorbs it, and reaches a maximum temperature. You also have the delaying effect of GH gasses in the atmosphere, WV principally, that absorb incoming solar IR and delay its arrival at the surface. There is always a lag between maximum insolation and average warmest day and in winter between minimum insolation and coldest day. The Earth has a significant heat capacity, as do the oceans and the atmosphere by comparison a small one. Yes, but that heat capacity is what determines a mass' temperature rise in response to that heat. (I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons) You mean like with melting ice or boiling water? Uh oh, he went for it, the good old phase change. Now tell me, once the heat has got into matter, changed it phase, yet not resulted in a temperature rise, how does that heat then go on to generate 'dialled in' temperature, a phrase so beloved of the 'thermal lag' ridiculousness. I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread. You can not add heat to matter without it warming up. Period. There is no 'dialled in' temperature rise. If we hold the radiative balance as it is right now it isn't going to get any warmer because there is now more heat. Period. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
There is no such thing as thermal inertia. Ahhh... so if I put a pan of cold water on the gas stove, it will instantly reach boiling point, yes? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:21:17 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. It's _whole_ temperature increases. That heat may get locked away and then outside resources can release that heat by changing surface conditions. So you cant 'store heat' in some handy little heat sink somewhere and have it later jump out on the earth and cause warming. It just isn't physically possible. Oh really? I suggest you think of ENSO and you might want to revise that statement. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 17:06:47 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: There is no such thing as thermal inertia. Ahhh... so if I put a pan of cold water on the gas stove, it will instantly reach boiling point, yes? How ridiculous. What is the insulative property of water? How long does it take for heat to travel from one side to the other, how big is pan, what shape is it, how cold is the air, how much heat does the flame produce and how much mass does the pan have? All these will determine how long it takes the water to reach any given temperature. However, for every joule of heat adder to the water a temperature rise results. There is no such thing as thermal lag. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
.... All these will determine how long it takes the water to reach any given temperature. .... There is no such thing as thermal lag. These two statements contradict each other. Either there is a lag (the time it takes to reach a given temperature) or there is not. They cannot both be true, so which one is correct? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 19:14:45 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: ... All these will determine how long it takes the water to reach any given temperature. ... There is no such thing as thermal lag. These two statements contradict each other. Either there is a lag (the time it takes to reach a given temperature) or there is not. They cannot both be true, so which one is correct? Oh come on, surely you understand the difference between the time it takes to boil water and the theory proposed by AGW alarmists that even if no more heat entered the system, warming will continue? You should do, its your silly theory after all! |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Oh come on, surely you understand the difference between the time it takes to boil water and the theory proposed by AGW alarmists that even if no more heat entered the system, warming will continue? There is no such theory, but I take it we can now agree that it takes time to raise the temperature of the world's oceans, just as it does to boil a pan of water. That being the case, the warming will lag behind a steadily increasing climate forcing. For example: If today's climate forcing is sufficient to cause 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium, we would not expect to see all of that warming today. We would only expect it to have reached about 60% of the equilibrium value by today - the 'transient warming'. That's why I said earlier: ============================= The net climate forcing (anthropogenic + natural) to date is around 1.7W/m² and fast feedback climate sensitivity is around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm, so we would expect to see around 1.7 * 0.75 = 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium and 1.7 * 0.75 * 0.6 = 0.8°C today, which is pretty much exactly the warming that we have seen. If you're arguing for something lower than 1.2°C per doubling of atmospheric CO₂ then you would only expect to have seen, at the very most, 1.7 * 0.3 * 0.6 = 0.3°C of global warming - clearly well below what has been observed. ============================= If you're claiming that fast feedback climate sensitivity is only around 1°C per doubling of atmospheric CO₂, then you have to account for why we've seen nearly three times greater global warming than you would have expected. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"Togless" wrote in message ...
For example: If today's climate forcing is sufficient to cause 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium... ================================= Equilibrium is indeed the key word. There's a failure to understand the difference between thermodynamics and kinetics. Thermodynamics tells you what balance the state of a system will ultimately tend towards, kinetics tells you how quickly that state might be reached, given the processes that have to occur to achieve the equilibrium state. The earth's climate system is not in equilibrium, at least internally, and especially as far as the deep oceans are concerned. There are processes on multi-year and multi-decade timescales that have to be factored in. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"General" wrote:
"Togless" wrote: For example: If today's climate forcing is sufficient to cause 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium... ================================= Equilibrium is indeed the key word. There's a failure to understand the difference between thermodynamics and kinetics. Thermodynamics tells you what balance the state of a system will ultimately tend towards, kinetics tells you how quickly that state might be reached, given the processes that have to occur to achieve the equilibrium state. That's right - there is some uncertainty about how readily heat is mixed into the deep oceans. See Hansen's study "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications" for a discussion. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...lancePaper.pdf |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On 18/02/2014 15:59, matt_sykes wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 16:37:13 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given climate. Actually it isn't. What you have is constant heat, pouring into matter, and it gets hotter and hotter, and as the sun goes past the zenith, the amount of heat pouring in gets less and less until it reaches the point at which the matter can release heat as quickly as it absorbs it, and reaches a maximum temperature. But the point here is that it matters what the matter is and how much of it there is. Oceans are powerful heat shunts and a warmer ocean surface will deliver a lot more water vapour into the atmosphere. A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. You also have the delaying effect of GH gasses in the atmosphere, WV principally, that absorb incoming solar IR and delay its arrival at the surface. This is unmitigated drivel. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the the bulk of the power containing peak wavelengths of incoming solar radiation at a characteristic temperature of 5500K. The "delay" due to absorption and re-emission in the dense part of the atmosphere where water vapour exists is probably less than 1ms - completely irrelevant as far as determining the hottest time of day. There is always a lag between maximum insolation and average warmest day and in winter between minimum insolation and coldest day. The Earth has a significant heat capacity, as do the oceans and the atmosphere by comparison a small one. Yes, but that heat capacity is what determines a mass' temperature rise in response to that heat. It is slow to warm up and slow to cool down too. (I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons) You mean like with melting ice or boiling water? Uh oh, he went for it, the good old phase change. Now tell me, once the heat has got into matter, changed it phase, yet not resulted in a temperature rise, how does that heat then go on to generate 'dialled in' temperature, a phrase so beloved of the 'thermal lag' ridiculousness. I have no idea what you are talking about with 'dialed in" temperature. I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread. Typical denier tactic to ignore any inconvenient physics that conflicts with your prejudices. You can not add heat to matter without it warming up. Period. You have already had the phase change counter example to that bogus "dittohead science" claim. There is no 'dialled in' temperature rise. No idea what you mean by that. There is real energy stored in the system as a result of a phase change due to latent heat of vaporisation or fusion respectively depending on which phase change it is. If we hold the radiative balance as it is right now it isn't going to get any warmer because there is now more heat. Period. We are continually shifting the radiative balance by adding more CO2 and it will take time (ISTR a few decades) for the planet to fully respond to the changes we have already made in CO2 concentration. I suppose I should give thanks that you do admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with non trivial absorption bands in the thermal IR that is characteristic of the surface temperature emissions on Earth. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 12:44:27 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/02/2014 15:59, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 16:37:13 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote: On 18/02/2014 14:21, matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote: ... In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of ocean. Not this old crock again. There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period. Thermal inertia is a pretty good description of the cause of the lag between the net maximum heat input and the actual hottest day in a given climate. Actually it isn't. What you have is constant heat, pouring into matter, and it gets hotter and hotter, and as the sun goes past the zenith, the amount of heat pouring in gets less and less until it reaches the point at which the matter can release heat as quickly as it absorbs it, and reaches a maximum temperature. But the point here is that it matters what the matter is and how much of it there is. Oceans are powerful heat shunts and a warmer ocean surface will deliver a lot more water vapour into the atmosphere. No it doesn't. If you add heat to matter it gets warmer, period. (And please don't start a circular argument, phase change can not give us 'dialled in' temperature rise). A piece of thin aluminium foil on a thick polystyrene insulating surface gets hotter a lot faster than a thick slab of aluminium. It is all to do with the specific heat capacity of the object being heated. Engineers call this thermal inertia which isn't such a bad name for it. Actually its called specific heat capacity. Oceans have a very high specific heat capacity compared to the atmosphere and an insanely long time to turn over their circulation. You also have the delaying effect of GH gasses in the atmosphere, WV principally, that absorb incoming solar IR and delay its arrival at the surface. This is unmitigated drivel. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the the bulk of the power containing peak wavelengths of incoming solar radiation at a characteristic temperature of 5500K. You are completely wrong. 505 of incoming solar energy is in the IR and plenty of it is in WV absorption bands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png The "delay" due to absorption and re-emission in the dense part of the atmosphere where water vapour exists is probably less than 1ms - completely irrelevant as far as determining the hottest time of day. So how does WV hold heat into the night if IR photons can travel through it so fast? There is always a lag between maximum insolation and average warmest day and in winter between minimum insolation and coldest day. The Earth has a significant heat capacity, as do the oceans and the atmosphere by comparison a small one. Yes, but that heat capacity is what determines a mass' temperature rise in response to that heat. It is slow to warm up and slow to cool down too. (I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons) You mean like with melting ice or boiling water? Uh oh, he went for it, the good old phase change. Now tell me, once the heat has got into matter, changed it phase, yet not resulted in a temperature rise, how does that heat then go on to generate 'dialled in' temperature, a phrase so beloved of the 'thermal lag' ridiculousness. I have no idea what you are talking about with 'dialed in" temperature. No? so what are you arguing about then, and go read skepticalscience, or just google it. I sniped the rest of yours stuff, it was about feedbacks and totally irrelevant to this thread. Typical denier tactic to ignore any inconvenient physics that conflicts with your prejudices. No, it was just irrelevant waffle that had nothing to do with supposed 'thermal lag'. You can not add heat to matter without it warming up. Period. You have already had the phase change counter example to that bogus "dittohead science" claim. I already said with the exception of the obvious, so given that proviso, I am dead right. Period. There is no 'dialled in' temperature rise. No idea what you mean by that. There is real energy stored in the system as a result of a phase change due to latent heat of vaporisation or fusion respectively depending on which phase change it is. And how is that heat going to get into the atmosphere and cause additional warming after thermal balance is achieved without the phase changing back? Which means cooling.... (I did say the obvious exception was unjustifiable, didn't I) If we hold the radiative balance as it is right now it isn't going to get any warmer because there is now more heat. Period. We are continually shifting the radiative balance by adding more CO2 and it will take time (ISTR a few decades) for the planet to fully respond to the changes we have already made in CO2 concentration. You don't get it do you. The 'thermal lag' idea says that even if we stop CO2 production, halt the imbalance as it is now, we will get another 0.5C temperature rise due to 'dialled in' warming. If you really don't understand this ridiculous theory, then here are some links: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...nd-Effect.html "Scientists tell us that even if CO2 was stabilized at its current level of 390 ppm, there is at least another 0.6 degrees "in the pipeline". " Maybe 'in the pipe line' you have heard of, I have often read 'dialied in'. Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. I, and basic physics, say that's a load of crap. There is no 'in the pipeline' temperature rise. note this is not the thermal lag as used in engineering, which as I said somethere, possibly here, is due to shc and conductivity. http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Thermal_lag |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:45:35 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: If you actually look at the 1000 mb data in the graph I linked you might detect a slight trend which is not inconsistent with your shortened and expanded y axis graph above. Yes, that's right. As you probably know, atmospheric water vapour is largely concentrated in the lower troposphere - Yes, but your studies concentrated on surface WV, not even lower troposphere, but 'the very bottom 2 meters of it' because it used station data, and that's why it found a trend that not only doesn't exist higher up, but is actually the opposite. Overall, tropospheric WV has reduced slightly, despite it warming. Therefore the AGW alarmist theory of WV positive feedback is disproved buy the data. http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress...centration.png The logarithmic scale of the graph you cited emphasises the very small decline in water vapour at high altitude and effectively hides the much larger increase of water vapour in the lower troposhere, which of course is what has the largest impact on the greenhouse effect. You have to wonder about the motivation of the author for displaying it in this misleading way. The graph doesn't have stratospheric data, it stops at 300 mb. Yes you're right about that, thanks. I mis-remembered the heights for those pressure layers. OK, I see your point, well, I suppose they had to fit the data on somehow, yet it is clear the drop at 500 mb data outweighs the much smaller drop at 1000mb even accounting for that; as your link says, up to 11 km WV has a linear relationship with height. but I think the lack of wv positive feedback is reflected in the empirical temperature data. Even if we attribute all the arming to CO2, then 0.7C for 46% more Co2 is a long way short of the 3C or 4C for 100% and in fact is nicely on the 1.2C per 100% predicted by a straight mathematical calculation of CO2 forcing. (note of course co2s effect in reverse log, the more we add the less effect it has). |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:50 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote: On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) matt_sykes wrote: As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2 from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not argument about it, it is basic physics. We do? I don't. But then I supposed it's all changed since I were a lad. ". . . changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth [sic] between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century." That's from "Understanding Climate Change - A Program for Action" published in 1975 (March). As for the forecast of a 0.5C rise in temperature by the end of the century, it was actually 0.48C (using 11-year smoothing). Pretty damn close, I'd say. Taking the longer view, a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 would account for a 1.03C rise in temperature from 1866 to 2007 (mid-points of 11-year means). The actual rise was 0.87C. Nearer 0.6 C http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007 Following anomalies are based on 1951-80 normal (or 1901-2000, same thing). 11-year mean centred on 1866 is -0.28. 11-year mean centred on 2007 is +0.59 Care to do the sums on that and tell me whether your answer is nearer 0.6C or 0.87C? -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. No, what the science actually says is that when we create an energy imbalance (more energy coming into the climate system than going out in the form of infrared radiation to space), it takes time for the Earth to warm up enough to restore radiative equilibrium. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:44:30 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: Basicaly, alarmist science says that if the heat source is removed, temperature will continue to rise. No, what the science actually says is that when we create an energy imbalance (more energy coming into the climate system than going out in the form of infrared radiation to space), it takes time for the Earth to warm up enough to restore radiative equilibrium. SO you agree that if we halt the imballance now the earth will not continue to warm? |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
"matt_sykes" wrote:
SO you agree that if we halt the imballance now the earth will not continue to warm? Yes, that's right - hence why James Hansen stated 'target CO₂' as 350ppm. The planetary energy imbalance today is around 0.6W/m², which is equivalent to the forcing from a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ from its present level of ~400ppm to ~350ppm. If we could magically remove 350 billion tons* of CO₂ from the atmosphere right now, then in theory that would zero out the imbalance and global warming should stop... provided that we haven't already set off any major slow climate feedbacks. The fact that we'd still be producing ~30 billion tons of CO₂ every year would be working against us. It wouldn't be an easy task at all. * It's just a coincidence that getting back to 350ppm would mean removing 350 billion tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere (roughly). |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 18:36:22 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote: SO you agree that if we halt the imballance now the earth will not continue to warm? Yes, that's right - hence why James Hansen stated 'target CO₂' as 350ppm. The planetary energy imbalance today is around 0.6W/m², which is equivalent to the forcing from a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ from its present level of ~400ppm to ~350ppm. If we could magically remove 350 billion tons* of CO₂ from the atmosphere right now, then in theory that would zero out the imbalance and global warming should stop... provided that we haven't already set off any major slow climate feedbacks. The fact that we'd still be producing ~30 billion tons of CO₂ every year would be working against us. It wouldn't be an easy task at all. * It's just a coincidence that getting back to 350ppm would mean removing 350 billion tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere (roughly). Good, so long as you agree that the 'in the pipeline' warming proposed by the likes of SKS is total junk I am happy. As for feedbacks though, WV isnt one, so there isnt runaway GH gas warming, or even a positive feedback to CO2 warming. |
Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:28:20 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:50 -0800 (PST) matt_sykes wrote: On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote: On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) matt_sykes wrote: As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2 from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not argument about it, it is basic physics. We do? I don't. But then I supposed it's all changed since I were a lad. ". . . changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth [sic] between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century." That's from "Understanding Climate Change - A Program for Action" published in 1975 (March). As for the forecast of a 0.5C rise in temperature by the end of the century, it was actually 0.48C (using 11-year smoothing). Pretty damn close, I'd say. Taking the longer view, a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 would account for a 1.03C rise in temperature from 1866 to 2007 (mid-points of 11-year means). The actual rise was 0.87C. Nearer 0.6 C http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007 Following anomalies are based on 1951-80 normal (or 1901-2000, same thing). 11-year mean centred on 1866 is -0.28. 11-year mean centred on 2007 is +0.59 Care to do the sums on that and tell me whether your answer is nearer 0.6C or 0.87C? -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'. "Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate." - BBC News subtitle But you havent given your data source, its just figures. I have given you IPCC data, the official, global, agreed data, and it shows 0,6 ish. And the last 10 years as flat as a pancake. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk