Unreliable sources to "balanced" approach to Climate Change

[blizzard1024]

Ugh, this has been explained to you so many times already.

 

Say the H2O feedback adds 20% to the original "heating". Say you "heat" by 1°C. The first iteration of the H2O feedback loop will add 0.2°C. The second iteration will add 0.2°C*20% = 0.04°C. The third will add 0.008°C. Etc ad infinitum. This is a convergent series (specifically, in this case, it converges to 1.25°C). No braking mechanism is required to prevent a runaway feedback loop. Indeed, the only way the feedback loop WILL grow indefinitely is if the feedback adds 100% or more to the original "heating".

This is such an oversimplification, I can not even take this seriously. Increasing water vapor in the atmosphere leads to a much more powerful effect than the original weak forcing from CO2. The additional

water vapor will lead to more heating which in turn leads to more water vapor which leads to more heating until the H20 absorption bands are saturated. Yes it is logarithmic but water vapor bands

are far from saturated especially in the upper troposphere where water vapor is scarce. 

[skierinvermont]

 braking 

 

Oops. I feel silly 

[blizzard1024]

1. The sensitivity analyses does NOT assume that "all the warming comes from CO2 forcing". Indeed, for the most part, it treats CO2 as a FEEDBACK historically, since it lags the temperature record.

2. If clouds and convection regulate the climate to the extent you're suggesting, how has climate changed in the past? You're arguing that it's possible that clouds and convection could be enough of a negative feedback to "negate all the manmade warming". But why would clouds distinguish between "manmade" and "natural" warming? Clouds don't know what CAUSED the warming, just that it's warmer. So if it has warmed in the past, in spite of clouds, why can it not warm in the future, in spite of clouds?

clouds just damp the forcing in either direction. That's all, thus runaway effects do not occur. 

[skierinvermont]

This is such an oversimplification, I can not even take this seriously. Increasing water vapor in the atmosphere leads to a much more powerful effect than the original weak forcing from CO2. The additional

water vapor will lead to more heating which in turn leads to more water vapor which leads to more heating until the H20 absorption bands are saturated. Yes it is logarithmic but water vapor bands

are far from saturated especially in the upper troposphere where water vapor is scarce. 

 

 

1. You've previously described the H20 feedback as weak, non-existent, or possibly even negative. Now you say it is incredibly strong; so strong that 1C of CO2 warming causes more than 1C of H2O warming (leading to runaway warming until the H2O bands are fully saturated). 

 

 

2. The H2O feedback is not this strong. Not even close. 1C of CO2 warming probably causes ~.5C of H2O warming, which causes .25C more, which causes .125C more etc. etc. As Mallow said, this is a convergent series that provides a total warming of 2C (1C of CO2, 1C of H2O). There is no runaway warming, even in the absence of any other "braking mechanisms" or negative feedbacks. 

 

 

You really do not understand what a positive feedback is. I urge you to slow down and think about this thoroughly.

[blizzard1024]

1. You've previously described the H20 feedback as weak, non-existent, or possibly even negative. Now you say it is incredibly strong; so strong that 1C of CO2 warming causes more than 1C of H2O warming (leading to runaway warming until the H2O bands are fully saturated). 

 

 

2. The H2O feedback is not this strong. Not even close. 1C of CO2 warming probably causes ~.5C of H2O warming, which causes .25C more, which causes .125C more etc. etc. As Mallow said, this is a convergent series that provides a total warming of 2C (1C of CO2, 1C of H2O). There is no runaway warming, even in the absence of any other "braking mechanisms" or negative feedbacks. 

 

 

You really do not understand what a positive feedback is. I urge you to slow down and think about this thoroughly.

 

Believe me I do know what a positive feedback is. I work with atmospheric processes all the time which can entail positive feedbacks. 

 

What is confusing is that H20 is both a forcing and a feedback. It leads to more warming which leads to more H20 etc. I don't know where you are getting the convergent series from. I understand your rationale and the convergent series stuff which, like I said earlier, converges to an asymptote. What about the saturation effects of the H20 absorption bands???  How does the 1.2C of warming get amplified to 2 to 4.5C?  It is computer model based which assumes has the forcing and feedbacks correct or the correct sign. The feedbacks again are uncertain and could be a net negative. Clouds also could have a dampening effect. We also don't know if the climate system was in equilibrium in 1850 either. The little ice age was waning. I just sincerely find it hard to believe that for the last 2.6 million years or so (glacial cycles), that CO2 followed temperatures and now it is the main cause of temperature change. It probably has an effect....but I am not sold on major climate change until I see better observational evidence of a more opaque atmosphere to GHGs (H2O mainly) in the satellite data. You and others on this site see it differently. We will never agree. We are not really that far off. I don't believe in CAGW but in some AGW.

 

Anyway, this thread is done in my opinion as I only started it in response to wxtrix's. I don't agree with shutting people/websites out of discussion or labeling people/sites as unreliable. Its my nature to look at all sides and the junk science becomes obvious. Here is an example of junk science...just look at this stuff.... CO2 causes COOLING according to this article. It is laughable.

 

http://climateclash.com/more-carbon-dioxide-cools-not-warms-the-earth/

 

We are smart enough to weed this stuff out.

 

But much of climate science it is not so easy and there are many unknowns. The science is NOT settled about climate sensitivity. That is my main point. I disagree vehemently with those who say this. It is complete arrogance when people say that this is a waste of time to read an article etc... then don't waste your time...don't read it. Other might want to. The one above is laughable. But you are free to read it. I would never say it is a waste of time. You can often learn a lot critiquing papers or peoples posts like we do on this forum. You guys have made me dig deeper and I have learned. Objective achieved. I will be looking more into the H20 feedback, definitively. The resources that wxtrix started are a good reference to begin.  

[skierinvermont]

Believe me I do know what a positive feedback is. I work with atmospheric processes all the time which can entail positive feedbacks. 

 

What is confusing is that H20 is both a forcing and a feedback. It leads to more warming which leads to more H20 etc. I don't know where you are getting the convergent series from. I understand your rationale and the convergent series stuff which, like I said earlier, converges to an asymptote. What about the saturation effects of the H20 absorption bands??? 

 

If you understand "the convergent series stuff" you would understand that a positive feedback does not lead to runaway warming even in the absence of any negative feedbacks or "braking mechanisms." Do you, or do you not, understand this fact?

[blizzard1024]

If you understand "the convergent series stuff" you would understand that a positive feedback does not lead to runaway warming even in the absence of any negative feedbacks or "braking mechanisms." Do you, or do you not, understand this fact?

 

I guess it is a question of a stable equilibrium vs. unstable equilibrium.  In my opinion, what is odd about the CO2-H2O feedback is that the weaker CO2 forcing drives the

the stronger H20 feedback. A weaker forcing leads to stronger feedback, otherwise we don't get almost 3X the original warming from doubled CO2. That strikes me as odd.

I am going to look into this further. I have read extensively on this but it does not add up to me. maybe I am getting dumber as I age!!!  

[WeatherRusty]

This is such an oversimplification, I can not even take this seriously. Increasing water vapor in the atmosphere leads to a much more powerful effect than the original weak forcing from CO2. The additional

water vapor will lead to more heating which in turn leads to more water vapor which leads to more heating until the H20 absorption bands are saturated. Yes it is logarithmic but water vapor bands

are far from saturated especially in the upper troposphere where water vapor is scarce. 

 

You are incorrect on every point made in this post. The radiative forcing produced by any incremental increase in water vapor due solely to warming by increased CO2 forcing is less than the original CO2 forcing. The resultant radiative forcing is independent of it's source, it doesn't know whether it came from CO2 or water vapor. The same convergent series entails as described above. Diminishing returns rule the process.

 

Spectral saturation plays no part in this at all. The absorption bands for the total atmosphere will never be saturated. Adding additional greenhouse gas will always raise surface temperature by increasing optical density and by elevating the level of 255K effective temperature emissivity. If spectral saturation were required to halt water vapor feedback, the system would cascade into a runaway condition....because the atmosphere will not saturate.

 

The only way to get a runaway condition on Earth is for the Sun to grow to red giant stage in it's evolution. Then the entire mass of the oceans will end up in the atmosphere.

[blizzard1024]

You are incorrect on every point made in this post. The radiative forcing produced by any incremental increase in water vapor due solely to warming by increased CO2 forcing is less than the original CO2 forcing. The resultant radiative forcing is independent of it's source, it doesn't know whether it came from CO2 or water vapor. The same convergent series entails as described above. Diminishing returns rule the process.

 

Spectral saturation plays no part in this at all. The absorption bands for the total atmosphere will never be saturated. Adding additional greenhouse gas will always raise surface temperature by increasing optical density and by elevating the level of 255K effective temperature emissivity. If spectral saturation were required to halt water vapor feedback, the system would cascade into a runaway condition....because the atmosphere will not saturate.

 

The only way to get a runaway condition on Earth is for the Sun to grow to red giant stage in it's evolution. Then the entire mass of the oceans will end up in the atmosphere.

I am going to go back to reading on this. You and skier have raised some good points that challenge my understanding of this. thanks. That is why

I am on this forum. I just don't like the insults or condescending attitudes by some. That is not needed, unless a troll comes by. 

[Mallow]

What he's saying is that with a 1% change in clouds (not a feedback, but being forced externally, such as from Cosmic Rays and Solar Variability) could be comparable to the IPCC's anthropogenic forcing since 1750 of 1.6 w/m^2. The net Cloud Forcing has been estimated to be -28 w/m^2. That means that if all Clouds were to be removed, an extra 28 w/m^2 would be forced upon Earth's climate. If Low Clouds were to have been reduced by 1-2%, this would have even more of a warming impact than net Clouds decreasing 1-2%.

 

O... kay? And what does that say about AGW, exactly? If you shut off the sun, that would be a much bigger impact than increasing CO2, too. But it's not a relevant point in the discussion of AGW, since AGW theory doesn't purport to shut off the sun (just as it doesn't purport to decrease low cloudcover by 1-2%).

[skierinvermont]

I guess it is a question of a stable equilibrium vs. unstable equilibrium.  In my opinion, what is odd about the CO2-H2O feedback is that the weaker CO2 forcing drives the

the stronger H20 feedback. A weaker forcing leads to stronger feedback, otherwise we don't get almost 3X the original warming from doubled CO2. That strikes me as odd.

I am going to look into this further. I have read extensively on this but it does not add up to me. maybe I am getting dumber as I age!!!  

 

Theoretically, an initial warming of 1C could have 99C of total feedbacks, or more, and still arrive at an equilibrium without any negative feedbacks or braking mechanism.

 

However, the odds of this would be exceptionally low. If the initial 1C of warming caused exactly .99C of initial feedback, which caused .9801C of second feedback, which caused .970299,  (rounding).96, .95 etc. etc. .... ..... .50, .495, .49 etc. etc. .... .... .01, .0099, etc. etc. the total would end up being something like 200C. Then there would be no more feedbacks (or if you prefer,... .000000001 etc. etc.) 

 

 

But for this to be true, 1C would have to cause EXACTLY .99C of feedback (the odds of this are exceptionally low since it is such a precise number). If the feedback was just a couple hundredths stronger, say 1.01C, then the warming would be runaway and equilibrium would never be reached. If the feedback was just a couple tenths weaker, say .7C, then it would converge much faster. It would converge to about 2.3C of feedbacks (for 3.3C total). So instead of the feedbacks converging to 200C of warming, they would converge to 2.3C of warming. 

 

 

So if sensitivity to doubling Co2 = 2.5C of warming, that would imply that the feedback to 1.2C of initial warming is around .6C.

 

In effect what a sensitivity of 2.5C is saying is:

 

1.2+.6+.3+.15+.075+.0375+.01875+.009375 etc. etc.  which converges to ~2.5 total. 

[WeatherRusty]

I am going to go back to reading on this. You and skier have raised some good points that challenge my understanding of this. thanks. That is why

I am on this forum. I just don't like the insults or condescending attitudes by some. That is not needed, unless a troll comes by. 

 

The planet Venus provides an example of an extreme greenhouse effect uninhibited by spectral saturation. The greenhouse effect there amounts to 510K as opposed to Earth's 33K. The difference is due entirely to atmospheric composition. The effective radiation temperature for Venus is only 220K versus 255K for Earth despite being closer to the Sun. Venus's albedo is .80 versus .30 for Earth. Venus should be a cooler planet than Earth due to its veil of clouds. However, complete 100% cloudiness has not prevented an enormous greenhouse effect on Venus.

 

Check out this tutorial

[FloridaJohn]

Stephen Colbert checked in on this topic the other night:

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423268/january-28-2013/the-word---the-new-abnormal?xrs=share_copy

 

I thought it was appropriate to this thread.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Stephen Colbert checked in on this topic the other night:

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423268/january-28-2013/the-word---the-new-abnormal?xrs=share_copy

 

I thought it was appropriate to this thread.

 

OMFG brilliant! That is going directly to my favorites!!

[Snow_Miser]

O... kay? And what does that say about AGW, exactly? If you shut off the sun, that would be a much bigger impact than increasing CO2, too. But it's not a relevant point in the discussion of AGW, since AGW theory doesn't purport to shut off the sun (just as it doesn't purport to decrease low cloudcover by 1-2%).

 

It means that the contribution that AGW has had to the long term warming trend would be less than if the warming were caused by Carbon Dioxide alone, if Low Clouds have decreased in response to a natural factor causing a significant portion of the warming observed in the 20th Century. This then means that the sensitivity to increased CO2 would be thus lower.

[blizzard1024]

It means that the contribution that AGW has had to the long term warming trend would be less than if the warming were caused by Carbon Dioxide alone, if Low Clouds have decreased in response to a natural factor causing a significant portion of the warming observed in the 20th Century. This then means that the sensitivity to increased CO2 would be thus lower.

Clouds are a huge wildcard in this. Just like the phase of the AO/NAO in winter seasonal forecasts in the northeast U.S are. A 2% increase in low cloud cover wipes out CO2 induced warming and

hence the water vapor feedback being positive as you all say would amplify the cooling more, hence there would be little change in the Earth's temperature or maybe even a drop. We don't fully understand how clouds vary in the long term or do we have a good record of how they respond to a warming climate. Until we do, the science remains far from settled IMO other than the basic CO2 radiative forcing.  This is a good point raised by snowlover123. 

 

And I still am inquiring on the water vapor feedback, I will try to email Dessler and ask him for some good solid references of his research or at least some presentation material. Since I disagree with this notion, it would be best to get the information from someone who has published and believes in it so I can see what the differences are. And I DO respect him as a PHD climate scientist and he gives great presentations. I will let you all know what comes of this if anything. These guys are pretty nice and willing share and educate people with science backgrounds...especially us skeptical METS. 

[Mallow]

It means that the contribution that AGW has had to the long term warming trend would be less than if the warming were caused by Carbon Dioxide alone, if Low Clouds have decreased in response to a natural factor causing a significant portion of the warming observed in the 20th Century. This then means that the sensitivity to increased CO2 would be thus lower.

 

Why do you need to invoke low clouds decreasing for some unknown natural reason, when CO2 explains the warming, we know why it has increased, and we know (to an extent) how that increase affects global temperatures? And why is the idea that increasing cloudcover by 1-2% would negate the CO2-induced AGW relevant here? One could simply say "it's possible that some of the warming could be explained by a decrease in low clouds" without skirting the point by mentioning some inconsequential fact about cloudcover increasing.

[Snow_Miser]

Why do you need to invoke low clouds decreasing for some unknown natural reason, when CO2 explains the warming, we know why it has increased, and we know (to an extent) how that increase affects global temperatures? And why is the idea that increasing cloudcover by 1-2% would negate the CO2-induced AGW relevant here? One could simply say "it's possible that some of the warming could be explained by a decrease in low clouds" without skirting the point by mentioning some inconsequential fact about cloudcover increasing.

 

If you assume that the sensitivity is 1.2 w/m^2/Degree C then CO2 would suffice for the warming trend, but sensitivity estimates are largely unknown. We don't know what the Cloud Changes have been over the last 150 years or so. It's a hypothesis that has not been disproven, so thus remains a hypothesis. With Solar Activity having a large effect on Climate, a 1-2% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the last 150 years is plausable (and even conservative) because Solar Activity dramatically increased during the 20th Century. Thus, if there is a significant natural constituent to the warming, an increase in Low Cloud Cover by 1-2% would negate the anthropogenic contribution to future Global Warming.

[skierinvermont]

Why do you need to invoke low clouds decreasing for some unknown natural reason, when CO2 explains the warming, we know why it has increased, and we know (to an extent) how that increase affects global temperatures? And why is the idea that increasing cloudcover by 1-2% would negate the CO2-induced AGW relevant here? One could simply say "it's possible that some of the warming could be explained by a decrease in low clouds" without skirting the point by mentioning some inconsequential fact about cloudcover increasing.

 

Snowlover is trying to lead us to the conclusion that cosmic rays have caused a decrease in LL clouds and thus caused warming. Or some other magic solar mechanism. But he's being rather obtuse about it because he knows there's zero evidence to support any solar mechanism causing such dramatic changes in global cloud cover. He's completely domagmatic about it which is why he can't admit that the data in Shaviv is wrong and has yet to respond to my post about it.

[csnavywx]

Why do you need to invoke low clouds decreasing for some unknown natural reason, when CO2 explains the warming, we know why it has increased, and we know (to an extent) how that increase affects global temperatures? And why is the idea that increasing cloudcover by 1-2% would negate the CO2-induced AGW relevant here? One could simply say "it's possible that some of the warming could be explained by a decrease in low clouds" without skirting the point by mentioning some inconsequential fact about cloudcover increasing.

I'm not sure why that point keeps getting brought up. The fact is, such a large change in cloud amount would've been detected by satellites. This smells of Linzden's debunked "Iris" theory.

[Mallow]

If you assume that the sensitivity is 1.2 w/m^2/Degree C then CO2 would suffice for the warming trend, but sensitivity estimates are largely unknown. We don't know what the Cloud Changes have been over the last 150 years or so. It's a hypothesis that has not been disproven, so thus remains a hypothesis. With Solar Activity having a large effect on Climate, a 1-2% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the last 150 years is plausable (and even conservative) because Solar Activity dramatically increased during the 20th Century. Thus, if there is a significant natural constituent to the warming, an increase in Low Cloud Cover by 1-2% would negate the anthropogenic contribution to future Global Warming.

 

See skier's and csnavy's posts. They said it better than I could have.

[Snow_Miser]

I'm not sure why that point keeps getting brought up. The fact is, such a large change in cloud amount would've been detected by satellites. This smells of Linzden's debunked "Iris" theory.

 

It has nothing to do with Lindzen's iris theory. I was refering to the timeframe over the last 150 years, which we unfortunately do not have satellite data to cover.

[Snow_Miser]

Snowlover is trying to lead us to the conclusion that cosmic rays have caused a decrease in LL clouds and thus caused warming. Or some other magic solar mechanism. But he's being rather obtuse about it because he knows there's zero evidence to support any solar mechanism causing such dramatic changes in global cloud cover. He's completely domagmatic about it which is why he can't admit that the data in Shaviv is wrong and has yet to respond to my post about it.

 

You have given ZERO substantiation for claiming that Shaviv manipulated the data.

 

You have not explained WHY the paper got published if it has manipulated data in it, and you have not explained WHY it got published into a leading climate journal.

 

On the contrary, there is a good bit of evidence that Cosmic Rays can modulate Cloud properties by looking at a number of atmospheric variables.

[skierinvermont]

You have given ZERO substantiation for claiming that Shaviv manipulated the data.

 

You have not explained WHY the paper got published if it has manipulated data in it, and you have not explained WHY it got published into a leading climate journal.

 

On the contrary, there is a good bit of evidence that Cosmic Rays can modulate Cloud properties by looking at a number of atmospheric variables.

 

I have provided actual SLR data, and compared it to Shaviv's. Shaviv's is different and magically contains an 11-yr cycle in it. What more proof do I need? Ball's in your court.

 

And no, there is zero evidence that cosmic rays influence cloud cover significantly. 

[blizzard1024]

I'm not sure why that point keeps getting brought up. The fact is, such a large change in cloud amount would've been detected by satellites. This smells of Linzden's debunked "Iris" theory.

That's not true. Cloud fraction detection is very difficult via satellite and there is no reliable long term data source. 1-3% change in cloud cover has been

observed in short term climate variability so it is certainly possible that this kind of variation (plus or minus) could occur in the long term. see graph below. 

 

 

This dataset was deemed unreliable for longer term climate variability but good for short term variability. Notice the 2-3% seasonal swings. The dataset

would explain why it has been so warm lately because of lower cloud fraction recently vs the beginning of the record but I believe skier called the

person who oversees the dataset and he/she deemed it as not reliable for long term trends. The point is a 1-2% long term trend either plus or minus

is not that large and could easily explain global temperature variations. 

 

However you also have the chicken and the egg argument. Did the warmer temperatures from some other forcing lead to less clouds or

did the lower cloud amount lead to lower albedo and warmer temperatures. 

[blizzard1024]

Why do you need to invoke low clouds decreasing for some unknown natural reason, when CO2 explains the warming, we know why it has increased, and we know (to an extent) how that increase affects global temperatures? And why is the idea that increasing cloudcover by 1-2% would negate the CO2-induced AGW relevant here? One could simply say "it's possible that some of the warming could be explained by a decrease in low clouds" without skirting the point by mentioning some inconsequential fact about cloudcover increasing.

The point is that a 1-2% increase in cloud cover (low cloud cover really) would increase the Earth's albedo. A 1 to 2 % increase in albedo = 2.4 to 4.8 w/m2 which overwhlems any manmade

changes in radiative forcing which is estimated to be at 1.6 w/m2 as of now. That is why there is so much uncertainty in my book. We need to understand what clouds are doing and there

is no good long term measure of clouds from satellite data. If low cloud cover is decreasing by some other factor, than you can't blame CO2 entirely for the warming and I am not

a cosmic ray guy either. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have provided actual SLR data, and compared it to Shaviv's. Shaviv's is different and magically contains an 11-yr cycle in it. What more proof do I need? Ball's in your court.

 

And no, there is zero evidence that cosmic rays influence cloud cover significantly. 

 

The only trend appears to be up up up....regardless of solar changes.

 

The big solar drop-off would in practical terms help cool the Earth, slow thermal Expansion, which has slowed some, especially during the solar drop.  But the large increase in land ice loss during that time has off-set that. 

 

[donsutherland1]

I have provided actual SLR data, and compared it to Shaviv's. Shaviv's is different and magically contains an 11-yr cycle in it. What more proof do I need? Ball's in your court.

 

And no, there is zero evidence that cosmic rays influence cloud cover significantly. 

I agree. The mismatch between the actual SLR data and Shaviv's data--a difference that could have occurred for a wide range of reasons--suggests that one should be very cautious about embracing Shaviv's findings. IMO, his findings don't stand up to further scrutiny. Suggesting that solar amplification must explain the gap between warming expected from TSI changes and the actual warming that occurred, needs to be backed by concrete evidence. The Shaviv paper doesn't furnish such evidence. It also fails to explain why the TSI-temperature relationship decoupled quite dramatically beginning in the mid-20th century.

 

The introduction of changes in radiative forcing produced by AGW explain that warming very well. Not surprisingly, the leaked draft of the IPCC report, which was taken badly out of context by Watts et al., mentions and then subsequently dismisses the solar amplification hypothesis.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree. The mismatch between the actual SLR data and Shaviv's data--a difference that could have occurred for a wide range of reasons--suggests that one should be very cautious about embracing Shaviv's findings. IMO, his findings don't stand up to further scrutiny. Suggesting that solar amplification must explain the gap between warming expected from TSI changes and the actual warming that occurred, needs to be backed by concrete evidence. The Shaviv paper doesn't furnish such evidence. It also fails to explain why the TSI-temperature relationship decoupled quite dramatically beginning in the mid-20th century.

 

The introduction of changes in radiative forcing produced by AGW explain that warming very well. Not surprisingly, the leaked draft of the IPCC report, which was taken badly out of context by Watts et al., mentions and then subsequently dismisses the solar amplification hypothesis.

 

The goal of the skeptic community is to exaggerate the level of uncertainty remaining within the science. Create doubt as to the robustness of the science. Create the appearance of scientific debate right to the core of the scientific basis.

 

It could all be due to changing clould amount. Well, yes it theoretically could. But...................

[blizzard1024]

and even after that post, blizzard 1024 posts a graph from climate4you. how is he engaged in honest discourse here?

The graph comes from a reliable source. The international satellite cloud climate project. ISCCP. You should look at this stuff instead of assume that it is made up just because of the source. Close minded.