129 Scientists sign Letter to UN Security General Ban Ki-Moon

[skierinvermont]

Yikes. Science is never done by consensus. That's totally wrong. Many of the scientists have published in the scientific literature on this topic.

You're insulting people on that list like Katya Georgieva, Bas Van Geel, George T. Wolff, Oleg Raspopov, and Valentin Dergachev who have published NUMEROUS articles about climate change science.

Shame on you.

Just doing a google scholar search on the first name on your list of "real scientists" (as opposed to the numerous well known hacks like bastardi and singer) reveals that Katya Georgieva has been advancing the Geo-AA hypothesis of climate change, which has been thorougly debunked. Geo-AA is at record high levels which should have caused cooling if it had any effect on global temperature.

(this is where you propose a magic lag effect where NO detectable effect is observed for 5, 10+ years and then suddenly cooling appears)

I'm also not sure that any of her articles on climate change are in journals with strong peer review.

[blizzard1024]

And finally you reveal your true colors.

It would take hours to debunk all of the basic factual errors in your post.

But I'll start with just one.

Provide a link demonstrating 7C of global warming in 50 years.

That should be easy enough.

I don't have time to battle here...but I have actually done a lot of research in this way back

to graduate school and once was a "believer".I have taken graduate level courses in climate

and climate change and also paleoclimatology and yes I passed. In fact I got As! I know Michael Mann

and I actually respect him and don't wish him any bad. It is a shame he is being bashed. He believes in his work.

That is fine. You believe what you believe in and that is fine. But don't bash on others who

see things differently. That is what has gotten me ticked off. Words like "Deniers, skeptics, evil..".

This ain't right. This should be a debate about facts. Let the facts stand as they stand. period.

Its too bad that this forum like many others can't be that way. Yes "my true colors" what does that mean?

I wish you all the best in your pursuit of understanding the climate system. good luck.

The climate models reference comes from a COMET course on climate models. You

should check it out. You might learn something.

[skierinvermont]

This is not GLOBAL. The thermal inertia of the oceans would prevent such an event from occurring.

[skierinvermont]

What you and many of the other global warming "alarmists" fail to look at is the big picture. In the grand scheme of things, the recent warming

is nothing unusual if you actually LOOK at the paleoclimate records. We happen to be warming at a rate of 1.5C per century which is not

that big a deal. There were times in the not too distant past that the Earth's Climate warmed 13F or about 7C in 50 years as per the GRIP ice core data

just before the Holocene with the retreating glaciers. That was a LOT of warming and the Earth survived. It was all natural back then. To think

humans and a TRACE gas can cause damage to the climate is silly. Yes the Earth has warmed and I NEVER said that it

hasn't. We also are coming out of a Little Ice Age and had high solar activity in the late 20th century. Without GCMs, you can't claim

that this warm period unusual. It warmed between 1910 and 1940 before the main burning of fossil fuels. It has warmed and cooled

in the past often. The Northern Hemisphere is always much more sensitive to any climate change because of the Arctic Ocean and the

large land masses.

It is well known that GCMs either leak too much energy or accumulate too much energy and need to be tweaked. In the past it was fluxes

that they tweaked to stabilize the climate system before increasing CO2. Now they have better models so they don't have to tweak the fluxes anymore...

BUT they still either lose or accumulate some energy so what do they do know? Tweak cloud cover to stabilize the climate system before introducing

extra CO2. Clouds ARE the main factor in regulating our climate system and they are tweaked. Nice. I have a lot of faith in this...NOT.

By pure radiative transfer alone, doubling CO2 concentrations leads to 1.2 C of warming or so. If feedbacks are negative, then this is less...if it is

positive it would be more. And NO...it won't spiral out of control. But the IRIS effect and the radiosonde data indicate drying in the upper troposphere

in the tropics with some warming. Of course, the alarmists discount this data because it does not fit their models. Satellite data in my opinion

is unreliable in this because the radiances of water vapor are tied to temperature and there is a lot of algorithms etc that need to be done to tease out upper level water vapor data. The radiosondes measure it. So you can believe what you want. I prefer direct measurements. In any event, CO2 warming of

1-2C per century is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. There is no evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic is unusual. Why is

the antarctic had record sea ice levels? The paleoclimate records show an antiphase relationship between the Arctic and Antarctic due to ocean currents.

When the thermohaline circulation is faster, more heat is pumped into the north atlantic away from the antarctic leading to cooler conditions down

there. When the circulation slows, it warms in the SH and cools in the NH. It just so happens that the AMO is in the warm phase now...so

it makes perfect sense that arctic sea ice is low. When the satellite record began, the AMO was cold...so therefore arctic sea ice was at a maximum.

You are seeing a cycle. The deepest waters in Arctic basin never lose their ice. I bet we are close to the minimums we will ever see up

there because the ice over the deepest water isn't going anywhere. We are at the minimum or close to a minimum in this cycle. It will come back

when the AMO flips.

AND...The EVIL in all this is the millions and potential even 1 billion+ people deprived of development, energy and clean water in the third world. In Africa

the powers that be won't allow them to use their coal and other natural resources for energy because of the potential CO2 emissions. Millions

are suffering and dying from lung disease because they burn wood in their huts which means they chop down trees and deforest the environment.

Also carbon taxes would ruin the world's economy leading to much more suffering and loss of prosperity in the USA and other 1st world nations.

This is EVIL in my opinion.

Partial list of factual errors:

1. There is no 7C warming/cooling in 50 years. You have confused local records as being global.

2. Moreover, wild climate swings in the past generally provide evidence of a less stable climate system that contains numerous feedbacks. This would only serve to enhance the 1.2C/doubling CO2 that you have accepted elsewhere. In other words, the fact that climate has changed quickly naturally only strengthens the case for positive feedbacks and strong AGW.

3. The basis of AGW does not rest upon GCMs, as you suggest. Estimates of climate sensitivity existed long before the first climate model (James Hansen 1988 model). And estimates continue to be produced and refined without the use of GCMs. The idea that AGW rests solely upon GCMs is a basic factual error. Estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 existed long before GCMs.

4. Your suggestion that antarctic sea ice is at record high levels is false. It is only at high levels relative to the data since 1979. There is satellite, aircraft and ship data from long before 1979. (for some reason it always seems that deniers forget the fact satellites were NOT invented in 1979). Satellites have existed since 1957 and humans entered space in 1961. There is substantial evidence that antarctic sea ice was much higher pre 1979.

5. Carbon taxes would not ruin the economy. It is estimated that we could keep global warming below 2C at a cost of only 1% of GDP. Substantial, but not "ruinous."

6. There has not been a drying of the troposphere. Satellite definitively proves a significant increase in water vapor.

Again, these are extremely basic factual errors that are easily fact-checked. I suggest you get your information from more reliable sources.

[blizzard1024]

This is not GLOBAL. The thermal inertia of the oceans would prevent such an event from occurring.

Ok that's a good point. So why does CO2 increases pose such a threat? The thermal inertia of the oceans

is very very large and dampen forcings... even if the CO2 forcing is large. It would be a

gradual rise in temperature of which man can adapt to. So even if it was 5C...it would be approximately 200 years or more.

No big deal. We adapted before and we will have to again...no doubt. Probably it will be the next ice age

that will be the biggest problem whenever that comes.

[skierinvermont]

Ok that's a good point. So why does CO2 increases pose such a threat? The thermal inertia of the oceans

is very very large and dampen forcings... even if the CO2 forcing is large. It would be a

gradual rise in temperature of which man can adapt to. So even if it was 5C...it would be approximately 200 years or more.

No big deal. We adapted before and we will have to again...no doubt. Probably it will be the next ice age

that will be the biggest problem whenever that comes.

It would slow it not dampen it.

5C even over 200 years would be catastrophic. 5C is easily enough to melt Greenland entirely and probably large sections of Antarctica.

It would be enough to raise global oceans by 60+ feet and submerge many major cities, probably over 1 billion people live within 60 feet of sea level.

[Snow_Miser]

Just doing a google scholar search on the first name on your list of "real scientists" (as opposed to the numerous well known hacks like bastardi and singer) reveals that Katya Georgieva has been advancing the Geo-AA hypothesis of climate change, which has been thorougly debunked. Geo-AA is at record high levels which should have caused cooling if it had any effect on global temperature.

(this is where you propose a magic lag effect where NO detectable effect is observed for 5, 10+ years and then suddenly cooling appears)

I'm also not sure that any of her articles on climate change are in journals with strong peer review.

Where is this alleged mechanism for rapid equilibriation of the oceans to a forcing? There is none.

Assuming rapid equilibriation in the climate system like it is assumed in Steven Schwartz's one dimensional model implies low climate sensitivity, so that might not be an argument that you would want to persue.

[skierinvermont]

Where is this alleged mechanism for rapid equilibriation of the oceans to a forcing? There is none.

Assuming rapid equilibriation in the climate system like it is assumed in Steven Schwartz's or dimensional model implies low climate sensitivity, so that might not be an argument that you would want to persue.

Who said rapid equilibrium? I said the slightest evidence that there has been ANY response at all to the massive change in Geo-AA.

In other words, even the beginning of cooling. Or even a mechanism by which cooling would occur. Instead of cooling, we continue to warm and the oceans continue to accumulate heat rapidly.

[Snow_Miser]

Who said rapid equilibrium? I said the slightest evidence that there has been ANY response at all to the massive change in Geo-AA.

In other words, even the beginning of cooling. Or even a mechanism by which cooling would occur. Instead of cooling, we continue to warm and the oceans continue to accumulate heat rapidly.

Global temperatures have not risen significantly in 16 years, and have cooled insignificantly over the last 11 years. Ocean heat content gain in the upper 700 meters of the ocean where we have the best data has slowed enormously in recent years, and has diverged considerably from modeled projections of heat content for this region. Other regions of the ocean have poor heat content data, so the 0-700 meter dataset is the best dataset to use for determining imbalances, since it is the most accurate. There is a lag between Ocean Heat Content and a forcing, so to see the ocean heat content slow considerably may be an indication of this lag.

We should know our answer for sure over the next 10-20 years or so about what theory is correct.

[blizzard1024]

Partial list of factual errors:

1. There is no 7C warming/cooling in 50 years. You have confused local records as being global.

2. Moreover, wild climate swings in the past generally provide evidence of a less stable climate system that contains numerous feedbacks. This would only serve to enhance the 1.2C/doubling CO2 that you have accepted elsewhere. In other words, the fact that climate has changed quickly naturally only strengthens the case for positive feedbacks and strong AGW.

3. The basis of AGW does not rest upon GCMs, as you suggest. Estimates of climate sensitivity existed long before the first climate model (James Hansen 1988 model). And estimates continue to be produced and refined without the use of GCMs. The idea that AGW rests solely upon GCMs is a basic factual error. Estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 existed long before GCMs.

4. Your suggestion that antarctic sea ice is at record high levels is false. It is only at high levels relative to the data since 1979. There is satellite, aircraft and ship data from long before 1979. (for some reason it always seems that deniers forget the fact satellites were NOT invented in 1979). Satellites have existed since 1957 and humans entered space in 1961. There is substantial evidence that antarctic sea ice was much higher pre 1979.

5. Carbon taxes would not ruin the economy. It is estimated that we could keep global warming below 2C at a cost of only 1% of GDP. Substantial, but not "ruinous."

6. There has not been a drying of the troposphere. Satellite definitively proves a significant increase in water vapor.

Again, these are extremely basic factual errors that are easily fact-checked. I suggest you get your information from more reliable sources.

Let's go to number 2. The wild swings in climate came when there were huge ice sheets in the NH, the climate is more stable during interglacials. The ice albedo feedback and of course the slowing or shutting down of the thermohaline circulation are the key reasons for the rapid changes in climate during glacial periods. Interglacials...like the Holocene...the changes in climate are much much less. When there are no large land mass ice sheets, the ice albedo effect is lower and there is no large meltwater surges into the north atlantic to shut down the circulation which could rapidly shift climate. Thus climate is much more stable during interglacials.

Number 3. name your references for this. Climate sensitivity from CO2 that is not based on climate models. Stefan-Boltzmann law which as you know is energy = sigma T to the fourth and spectroscopy data reveals about 1.2C for a doubling of CO2. How did they measure or estimate sensitivity of CO2 including feedbacks without climate models? seriously. I have never seen this and I am well read on this topic. Please furnish these references. I would be very interested in reading this. I do have an open mind on this stuff. If I see data that starts to prove otherwise I would change my views as all good scientists do.

Number 4. where is this data from satellites? I would LOVE to see it, especially for the arctic. That would be awesome. Because it would be neat to see how the sea ice was back in the 60s when the AMO was warm..but cooling off. To me the lack of sea ice data before 1979 always has been troubling. I always wanted to see what it might be like prior to this cold time frame. Please share these references.

Number 5. I am not an economist. I am going by what I have seen and read...and by the way NOT from FOX or Rush Limbaugh's website! Energy is critical to survival of the human race right now. The world economy and our country's is very precarious. New taxes that regulate energy could be disastrous since it is

the life blood of economies. It would be scary to mess with something that is so essential to market economies. If an alternative energy becomes available that is cleaner and more efficient...I say go for it. But who is going to tell China and India to stop building coal plants?

Number 6. This is just for the oceans and again there are problems with the satellite data just like many people have problems with the satellite temperature record. Same thing. It also depends on where the moistening is occurring. If it is primarily lower troposphere...with even small drying in the upper troposphere...there is a net loss of long wave energy. It is the tropical upper troposphere water vapor concentrations that hold the key to the water vapor feedback.

Unfortunately both satellites and radiosondes have their troubles up there measuring water vapor. I go with the actual measurements...which are very negative in the upper troposphere...probably overdone....but still negative. BUT...in the boundary layer the radiosondes actually show increasing water vapor with increasing temperatures. It switches sign above the mixed layer...which is interesting because it suggests convective overturning could actually be drying the upper troposphere as Lindzen et al have suggested. Also Dr. Spencer.

Thanks for the responses. This is what good scientific debate is about. I am glad this thread has gotten to this.

cheers.

[skierinvermont]

Let's go to number 2. The wild swings in climate came when there were huge ice sheets in the NH, the climate is more stable during interglacials. The ice albedo feedback and of course the slowing or shutting down of the thermohaline circulation are the key reasons for the rapid changes in climate during glacial periods. Interglacials...like the Holocene...the changes in climate are much much less. When there are no large land mass ice sheets, the ice albedo effect is lower and there is no large meltwater surges into the north atlantic to shut down the circulation which could rapidly shift climate. Thus climate is much more stable during interglacials.

Number 3. name your references for this. Climate sensitivity from CO2 that is not based on climate models. Stefan-Boltzmann law which as you know is energy = sigma T to the fourth and spectroscopy data reveals about 1.2C for a doubling of CO2. How did they measure or estimate sensitivity of CO2 including feedbacks without climate models? seriously. I have never seen this and I am well read on this topic. Please furnish these references. I would be very interested in reading this. I do have an open mind on this stuff. If I see data that starts to prove otherwise I would change my views as all good scientists do.

Number 4. where is this data from satellites? I would LOVE to see it, especially for the arctic. That would be awesome. Because it would be neat to see how the sea ice was back in the 60s when the AMO was warm..but cooling off. To me the lack of sea ice data before 1979 always has been troubling. I always wanted to see what it might be like prior to this cold time frame. Please share these references.

Number 5. I am not an economist. I am going by what I have seen and read...and by the way NOT from FOX or Rush Limbaugh's website! Energy is critical to survival of the human race right now. The world economy and our country's is very precarious. New taxes that regulate energy could be disastrous since it is

the life blood of economies. It would be scary to mess with something that is so essential to market economies. If an alternative energy becomes available that is cleaner and more efficient...I say go for it. But who is going to tell China and India to stop building coal plants?

Number 6. This is just for the oceans and again there are problems with the satellite data just like many people have problems with the satellite temperature record. Same thing. It also depends on where the moistening is occurring. If it is primarily lower troposphere...with even small drying in the upper troposphere...there is a net loss of long wave energy. It is the tropical upper troposphere water vapor concentrations that hold the key to the water vapor feedback.

Unfortunately both satellites and radiosondes have their troubles up there measuring water vapor. I go with the actual measurements...which are very negative in the upper troposphere...probably overdone....but still negative. BUT...in the boundary layer the radiosondes actually show increasing water vapor with increasing temperatures. It switches sign above the mixed layer...which is interesting because it suggests convective overturning could actually be drying the upper troposphere as Lindzen et al have suggested. Also Dr. Spencer.

Thanks for the responses. This is what good scientific debate is about. I am glad this thread has gotten to this.

cheers.

#2 Physics (note NOT GCMs) shows that even during glacial periods the water vapor feedback was at least as large or bigger than the albedo feedback. I'd have to go back and check some references to get the exact magnitude estimates, but people often focus far too much on the albedo feedback than the WV feedback. But the studies are out there. In a thread earlier this year I provided mathematical proof that albedo changes could not have been responsible for more than maybe 1/3 of previous interglacial warming. This can be calculated based on how much more energy is reflected by snow/ice than land/water. I was actually arguing against AGW albedo alarmists. Overestimating the albedo effect is a common mistake made by both alarmists and deniers. Perhaps because it is such a visible symptom of climate change.

#3 A good summary of many dozen, not all, climate sensitivty studies. Note very few rely upon GCMs at all. Dozens references to peer-reviewed studies.

http://www.skeptical...ensitivity.html

#4 A good summary of pre 1979 ice extent (summarizing the Chapman and Walsh 2001 study). http://tamino.wordpr...from-joe-daleo/

There are also similar studies on Antarctic sea ice but the data isn't quite as good but we still get a decent picture of higher ice pre-1979 (which corresponds to the AAO).

#5 There have been several good, academic studies done by economists (not the "green industry") which estimate the costs of climate mitigation. They find the costs of mitigation to be less than adaption. One thing to keep in mind is that in many areas wind is already cost competitive with coal and gas. Which is why most new power construction in the U.S. is from wind. We're building very significant quantities of wind power in the U.S. Within a decade, even under current law, wind will probably be close to 10% of U.S. power production. With some small additional incentives, it could be even more.

#6 The following chart, from a major recent peer-reviewed "consensus" paper represents the most complete compilation of sources of global tropospheric specific humidity by altitude that I know of (Dessler 2010). As you can see, all sources show an overall increase, and most sources show an increase at all altitudes:

[TerryM]

Skier

You've more patience than I.

Terry

[blizzard1024]

#2 Physics (note NOT GCMs) shows that even during glacial periods the water vapor feedback was at least as large or bigger than the albedo feedback. I'd have to go back and check some references to get the exact magnitude estimates, but people often focus far too much on the albedo feedback than the WV feedback. But the studies are out there. In a thread earlier this year I provided mathematical proof that albedo changes could not have been responsible for more than maybe 1/3 of previous interglacial warming. This can be calculated based on how much more energy is reflected by snow/ice than land/water. I was actually arguing against AGW albedo alarmists. Overestimating the albedo effect is a common mistake made by both alarmists and deniers. Perhaps because it is such a visible symptom of climate change.

#3 A good summary of many dozen, not all, climate sensitivty studies. Note very few rely upon GCMs at all. Dozens references to peer-reviewed studies.

http://www.skeptical...ensitivity.html

#4 A good summary of pre 1979 ice extent (summarizing the Chapman and Walsh 2001 study). http://tamino.wordpr...from-joe-daleo/

There are also similar studies on Antarctic sea ice but the data isn't quite as good but we still get a decent picture of higher ice pre-1979 (which corresponds to the AAO).

#5 There have been several good, academic studies done by economists (not the "green industry") which estimate the costs of climate mitigation. They find the costs of mitigation to be less than adaption. One thing to keep in mind is that in many areas wind is already cost competitive with coal and gas. Which is why most new power construction in the U.S. is from wind. We're building very significant quantities of wind power in the U.S. Within a decade, even under current law, wind will probably be close to 10% of U.S. power production. With some small additional incentives, it could be even more.

#6 The following chart, from a major recent peer-reviewed "consensus" paper represents the most complete compilation of sources of global tropospheric specific humidity by altitude that I know of (Dessler 2010). As you can see, all sources show an overall increase, and most sources show an increase at all altitudes:

#2 I would like to see the information on this. The ice albedo feedback is critically important to glaciations. You notice how long it takes to get to a glacial maximum. That's because is takes a long time to build ice sheets. I would like to see your references and mathematical proof that it was the water vapor feedback that causes this. The water vapor feedback is critical to CO2 warming beyond a small 1.2C for doubling as you know.

#3. This thread I have already seen and I don't agree that feedbacks from different forcings have to be the same. Where do clouds fit in here? Nobody addresses this or it is a feeble attempt. The ice-albedo feedback is the only one that makes sense because it can not run away...since the glacial mass flows to the mid-latitudes where the sun angles are too high and they melt. Plus they dam up arctic air so that locations farther south...like Florida are actually warmer during glacials. It is well know that winters in the far southern U.S were warmer than today. There is a breaking mechanism. So with the positive water vapor feedback, what is the breaking mechanism? We know it does not spiral out of control. Something has to slow the feedback down or else the climate would go too far one way or another. Nobody has ever shown this. I would like to understand this more. Honestly. any papers or references on this would be appreciated.

#4 sea ice extent...where do they get this data from especially before satellites? I would like to see satellite date back to 1960 on this? where is it? there are

two different data sources here, one is from estimates based on diaries of people and another that is a direct measurement. Sorry. The extent back to the 1880s does not hold up scientifically from people diaries in my mind.

#6 Radiosondes dry the upper troposphere which measure humidity directly, satellites have to estimate it based on radiance and it gets messy. Dressler used Satellite data. All the other datasets combined radiosonde and satellite to a certain degree...therefore you have a bunch of data that uses a mix of radiosonde and satellites so of course all them will be higher that the radiosonde in the upper tropopshere. I also believe Dressler's study was for a much shorter time period, The jury is out on this...but other satellite observations and OLR measurements...i.e LIndzen and Spencer both indicate a negative feedback. you can't ignore these accomplished scientists who look at direct measurements of OLR and changes in temperatures due to el ninos and la ninas etc. Peer reviewed consensus is group think anymore. Sadly, I think you have to be careful here anymore. They tried to stifle Paltridge's radiosonde work because it is a dagger in the dangerous AGW theory. The data exists and clearly shows a negative trend in the upper troposphere of specific humidity. Why does it show positive trend in the boundary layer up to 850 mb and switch signs? Convective overturning....a physical reason.

I will yield on #5 as I am not an economist and have not read as much as you on this stuff.

I thank you for your "patience". We "dumb" people should have a chance to learn too huh? What arrogance by some who have lost patience! The fact is there is so much complexity to the climate system I think it is arrogant that we can actually believe we have it all figured out that perturbing a trace gas will lead to CAGW. But I am willing to admit I do have an open mind, but I am very skeptical as a scientist. If you can convince me of this, then you are a real scientist in your own right. But of course many on this forum are too arrogant. Thanks.

[OSUmetstud]

Wasn't methane still a "trace" gas when it is thought to be a major driver in the Permian-Triassic Extinction?

[LocoAko]

Every mention of CO₂ being a "trace gas" lowers patience and credibility, IMO.

[Snow_Miser]

Every mention of CO₂ being a "trace gas" lowers patience and credibility, IMO.

Why?

Co2 is a trace gas, so why does that lower someone's credibility if they state that fact?

[Snow_Miser]

For future reference, here is the paltridge et al. 2009 study that skier and blizzard have been discussing about on this thread: http://www.drroyspencer.com/Paltridge-NCEP-vapor-2009.pdf

[skierinvermont]

For future reference, here is the paltridge et al. 2009 study that skier and blizzard have been discussing about on this thread: http://www.drroyspen...-vapor-2009.pdf

As the Paltridge study itself notes "it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination."

[Snow_Miser]

As the Paltridge study itself notes "it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination."

Yes. They are cautious with this data. True scientific skeptics.

[Jonger]

A trace gas is a gas which makes up less than 1% by volume of the Earth's atmosphere, and it includes all gases except nitrogen (78.1%) and oxygen (20.9%)

So technically he is correct. I do understand the annoyance though.

[LocoAko]

Why?

Co2 is a trace gas, so why does that lower someone's credibility if they state that fact?

Because we all know (or at least I would hope we all do) that CO₂ is a trace gas. What is the point of calling it that? Just because something is a trace gas doesn't mean it cannot significantly impact the environment, be dangerous, etc. The constant use of the term is quite obviously trying to portray CO₂ as insignificant while trying to be "correct".

[skierinvermont]

#2 I would like to see the information on this. The ice albedo feedback is critically important to glaciations. You notice how long it takes to get to a glacial maximum. That's because is takes a long time to build ice sheets. I would like to see your references and mathematical proof that it was the water vapor feedback that causes this. The water vapor feedback is critical to CO2 warming beyond a small 1.2C for doubling as you know.

#3. This thread I have already seen and I don't agree that feedbacks from different forcings have to be the same. Where do clouds fit in here? Nobody addresses this or it is a feeble attempt. The ice-albedo feedback is the only one that makes sense because it can not run away...since the glacial mass flows to the mid-latitudes where the sun angles are too high and they melt. Plus they dam up arctic air so that locations farther south...like Florida are actually warmer during glacials. It is well know that winters in the far southern U.S were warmer than today. There is a breaking mechanism. So with the positive water vapor feedback, what is the breaking mechanism? We know it does not spiral out of control. Something has to slow the feedback down or else the climate would go too far one way or another. Nobody has ever shown this. I would like to understand this more. Honestly. any papers or references on this would be appreciated.

#4 sea ice extent...where do they get this data from especially before satellites? I would like to see satellite date back to 1960 on this? where is it? there are

two different data sources here, one is from estimates based on diaries of people and another that is a direct measurement. Sorry. The extent back to the 1880s does not hold up scientifically from people diaries in my mind.

#6 Radiosondes dry the upper troposphere which measure humidity directly, satellites have to estimate it based on radiance and it gets messy. Dressler used Satellite data. All the other datasets combined radiosonde and satellite to a certain degree...therefore you have a bunch of data that uses a mix of radiosonde and satellites so of course all them will be higher that the radiosonde in the upper tropopshere. I also believe Dressler's study was for a much shorter time period, The jury is out on this...but other satellite observations and OLR measurements...i.e LIndzen and Spencer both indicate a negative feedback. you can't ignore these accomplished scientists who look at direct measurements of OLR and changes in temperatures due to el ninos and la ninas etc. Peer reviewed consensus is group think anymore. Sadly, I think you have to be careful here anymore. They tried to stifle Paltridge's radiosonde work because it is a dagger in the dangerous AGW theory. The data exists and clearly shows a negative trend in the upper troposphere of specific humidity. Why does it show positive trend in the boundary layer up to 850 mb and switch signs? Convective overturning....a physical reason.

I will yield on #5 as I am not an economist and have not read as much as you on this stuff.

I thank you for your "patience". We "dumb" people should have a chance to learn too huh? What arrogance by some who have lost patience! The fact is there is so much complexity to the climate system I think it is arrogant that we can actually believe we have it all figured out that perturbing a trace gas will lead to CAGW. But I am willing to admit I do have an open mind, but I am very skeptical as a scientist. If you can convince me of this, then you are a real scientist in your own right. But of course many on this forum are too arrogant. Thanks.

#2 You can perform a rough calculation of the change in energy absorption or radiative forcing for a sea ice area anomaly of 2 million sq km from March to September as follows:

200Wm/2 = average insolation March to September

.8 = change in albedo

2,000,000,000,000m2 * 200W/m2 * .8 = 320,000,000,000,000 Watts

divide by the surface area of the earth = .6 W/m2

= a loss of 2,000,000 sq km of sea ice from March to September is a .6W/m2 forcing during those 6 months, divide by 2 to get the average annual RF = .3W/m2

Here is a paper which concludes a .7W/m2 RF if there is NO sea ice YEAR ROUND. It says the actual RF would be lower because there would be an increase in cloud cover.

http://www.npolar.no...edoFeedback.pdf

A .7W/m2 RF is only 20% of the RF for doubling CO2, and only ~10% of the forcing including all feedbacks ~7W/m2. Again, this if for a completely ice free arctic year round.

This study found only a .88W/m2 RF for all sea ice and land snow during the last glacial maximum.

http://140.208.31.10...les/ajb8701.pdf

#3 Again, you falsely state that "there must be breaking mechanisms" As Mallow and I have already explained, there DO NOT "have to be breaking mechanisms." Positive feedbacks are not the same thing as runaway positive feedbacks. If CO2 causes 1.2C of warming, then the positive feedbacks cause another .6C of warming, which causes another .3C of warming, which causes another .15C of warming. The total ends up being 2.4C of warming. And then warming STOPS. All by itself. With no "breaking mechanism."

If you're going to disagree with these numerous, detailed, peer-reviewed studies of climate sensitivity, you're going to have to do a whole hell of a lot better than "I think feedbacks are different for different causes of warming." Did it not occur to you that this MIGHT have occurred to some of the many experts in the field who have spent their lives studying this?

#4 The data is not based on "diaries." It is detailed ship and aircraft observation, much of which was undertaken specifically for the purpose of documenting ice extent. The satellite data goes back to at least 1972 and probably there is some satellite data incorporated to the mid 1960s. There is detailed documentation of the various sources and how they are used to create a contiguous record and detailed estimates of ERROR BARS. The paper uses complex statistical math to calculate what the level of uncertainty is. You saying "oh it's just diaries it's wrong" does nothing to dispute this. I suggest you actually read the paper, walsh and chapman 2001, in full and let us know if you find anything wrong with their math.

Also, I would like to note that most deniers have used a mere handful of ship reports to claim low historical sea ice extent, while ignoring the thousands of other ship aircraft and satellite observations.

#5 good

#6 Nobody tried to stifle Partridge's work. Partridge HIMSELF says that his work is EXTREMELY uncertain and he cannot conclude whether upper tropospheric water vapor is increasing or decreasing. You're just making things up now.

Dessler 2010 is also NOT a shorter time period. It encompasses 1973-2007.

Also I believe you are confused about the Lindzen and Spencer studies... they were looking at cloud feedback not water vapor. And their studies are deeply flawed as has been documented in several peer-reviewed studies. And their papers were not done in good journals with strong peer-review. You will have to link the specific studies if you want to discuss this.

As Skeptical Science states:

To claim that humidity is decreasing requires you ignore a multitude of independent reanalyses, including newer ones with improved algorithms, that all show increasing humidity. It requires you accept a flawed reanalysis that even its own authors express caution about. It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback (indeed there is no known mechanism that can explain it). In short, to insist that humidity is decreasing is to neglect the full body of evidence.

The theoretical basis for an increase in specific humidity with temperature is just so "duh" it almost doesn't even need empirical proof. Warm air holds more water. Duh.

[Mallow]

Why?

Co2 is a trace gas, so why does that lower someone's credibility if they state that fact?

If Cl2 was a trace gas at the concentrations CO2 has in the atmosphere, nobody would be downplaying it as "just a trace gas". Since we'd all be dead.

The point is, as Jake said, we know its concentration in the atmosphere. Intentionally pointing out that it's a trace gas (like his use of the term in ALL CAPS) occurs for one of two reasons--1. one thinks that because it's a trace gas, it must NOT have a significant impact, or 2. one wants to get OTHER people to think along those lines. It's ignorant at best, disingenuous and misleading at worst. The fact that he continues to do it after being called out on it (just like the fact that he continues to think positive feedback = runaway feedback) tells me all I need to know about his actual intentions.

[OSUmetstud]

Why?

Co2 is a trace gas, so why does that lower someone's credibility if they state that fact?

because he's using the term to state specifically it won't have a significant impact.

[OSUmetstud]

Rn is a trace gas too, it can't possibly be causing increased cancer rates.

Polonium-210 is a trace material in tobacco, it can't possibly be causing alpha radiation in the lungs and cancer.

[Snow_Miser]

because he's using the term to state specifically it won't have a significant impact.

Then I agree that the use of the trace gas phrase in that context could definitely be misleading.

CO2 has a significant impact on climate change over the last 100 years, as have ocean cycles, and solar activity changes.

[skierinvermont]

Then I agree that the use of the trace gas phrase in that context could definitely be misleading.

CO2 has a significant impact on climate change over the last 100 years, as have ocean cycles, and solar activity changes.

If by significant you mean the former has had a net effect an order of magnitude greater than either of the latter two.

The sun is back near conditions it was early century and the PDO is negative. The AMO is primarily a symptom, not a cause, of global warming.

[Snow_Miser]

If by significant you mean the former has had a net effect an order of magnitude greater than either of the latter two.

They are all significant climate factors.

As I have stated many times, to ignore the natural factors that impact climate change would be just as silly as to ignore the anthropogenic factors.

[skierinvermont]

They are all significant climate factors.

As I have stated many times, to ignore the natural factors that impact climate change would be just as silly as to ignore the anthropogenic factors.

Nobody is ignoring them. Just pointing out that their net effect has been much much smaller.

Solar variables are near levels from the early 20th century, the PDO is negative, and the AMO is primarily a symptom not a cause of global warming.

[skierinvermont]

Global temperatures have not risen significantly in 16 years, and have cooled insignificantly over the last 11 years. Ocean heat content gain in the upper 700 meters of the ocean where we have the best data has slowed enormously in recent years, and has diverged considerably from modeled projections of heat content for this region. Other regions of the ocean have poor heat content data, so the 0-700 meter dataset is the best dataset to use for determining imbalances, since it is the most accurate. There is a lag between Ocean Heat Content and a forcing, so to see the ocean heat content slow considerably may be an indication of this lag.

We should know our answer for sure over the next 10-20 years or so about what theory is correct.

Nice cherry picking starting in El Nino-ish periods and ending in a Nina-ish period. Bravo. Do you really expect to trick anybody using obvious cherry picking like this?

1999-2012 (which is approximately an ENSO neutral period) shows warming of .14C/decade on GISS, .16C/decade UAH, .05C/decade RSS. That produces an average of .12C/decade.

0-700m is MORE precise than 0-2000m OHC. That does not mean than 0-2000m is completely inaccurate It has established error bars and quantifiable error bars for the determining the significance of trends. The trend 2003-2008 was .77W/m2 +/- .11W/m2. That means that at LOWEST with 95% confidence the trend was .66W/m2.

This is further supported by rapidly rising sea levels due to thermal expansion.

There is not a lag between a forcing and change in OHC. Propose one plausible mechanism by which there would be a lag between forcing and OHC. If Geo-AA is exerting a strong negative forcing causing the earth's energy balance to become negative (by definition), this should become immediately apparent in declining OHC.

If Geo-AA has the hypothesized effect of the deniers, then OHC should have begun to fall rapidly 5 years ago. Instead, it continues to rise rapidly. As do surface temperatures when adjusted for ENSO.