"Bundle up, It's Global warming"

[BethesdaWX]

this post is essentially gobbledygook. learn to write and think coherently if you want to communicate with other human beings.

Then you're reading skills suck hard.

[skierinvermont]

Then you're reading skills suck hard.

I tell you what.. if you can find anybody else that can decipher that code I will mail you $100

it is full of non-sequiturs, ambiguous subjects, ambiguous objects, typos, etc. etc.

[BethesdaWX]

I tell you what.. if you can find anybody else that can decipher that code I will mail you $100

it is full of non-sequiturs, ambiguous subjects, ambiguous objects, typos, etc. etc.

Tell me what you don't understand, and I'll explain it to you....I have no problem tutoring you. I'm nice like that!

[skierinvermont]

Tell me what you don't understand, and I'll explain it to you....I have no problem tutoring you. I'm nice like that!

How about you try retyping it including coherent logic, spelling, grammar and sources to back up assertions.

[BethesdaWX]

How about you try retyping it including coherent logic, spelling, grammar and sources to back up assertions.

Again... give examples, dont try to go off topic and change the discussion away from my post....again

[skierinvermont]

Again... give examples, dont try to go off topic and change the discussion away from my post....again

I'm not. I'm asking you to retype the post in question in a coherent logical manner with citations for any assertions.

[nzucker]

Can we stop this garbage, folks? Let's get back to the topic on hand...

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not. I'm asking you to retype the post in question in a coherent logical manner with citations for any assertions.

Well, I'd do it if I knew what you were talking about! What did I mispell, do wrong, or what?

Thanks

[skierinvermont]

Well, I'd do it if I knew what you were talking about! What did I mispell, do wrong, or what?

Thanks

the entire thing is incoherent rambling

[nzucker]

the entire thing is incoherent rambling

Strongly agree...please clarify your points Bethesda in a much more succinct manner.

[BethesdaWX]

Strongly agree...please clarify your points Bethesda in a much more succinct manner.

Again....I would if you elaborate! Saying "it makes no sense" yadadada....well, what about it? I'll never satisfy your needs if I dont know what you want targeted.

[nzucker]

Again....I would if you elaborate! Saying "it makes no sense" yadadada....well, what about it? I'll never satisfy your needs if I dont know what you want targeted.

I don't understand what you mean about water vapor being more powerful than CO2. Isn't an effect of greenhouse gas emissions having more water vapor in the atmosphere?

[BethesdaWX]

I don't understand what you mean about water vapor being more powerful than CO2. Isn't an effect of greenhouse gas emissions having more water vapor in the atmosphere?

Ok thankyou.

I could have elaborated. I was referring to feedback", and why it is not necessarily Positive......although I did not explain.

More water vapor & increased Precip, Cloud Ocver decrease at the lower levels, and even WV decrease in general, there is no positive feedback. See links.... below

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/AMS-Final5-10.pdf

http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/05/06/paper-by-william-gray-and-barry-schwartz-water-vapor-feedback-is-negative/

As for why CO2/Temperaure relation is inconclusive.......

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/new-peer-reviewed-paper-absence-of-correlation-between-temperature-changes-and-co2/

[Vandy]

That plot would actually support a positive feedback. Lower clouds tend to be optically thicker and block more visible radiation from making it to the ground whereas middle and upper atmosphere clouds tend to be thin, letting in more visible but still blocking IR due to H2O's strong absorption spectrum in the IR.

[BethesdaWX]

That plot would actually support a positive feedback. Lower clouds tend to be optically thicker and block more visible radiation from making it to the ground whereas middle and upper atmosphere clouds tend to be thin, letting in more visible but still blocking IR due to H2O's strong absorption spectrum in the IR.

Uhhh, thats the whole point. The Decrease in Low Level Cloud Cover IS a positive...thats the whole point, it leads to warming. However, Higher CO2 would suggest more Low Level Clouds/WV...thus the two are not working in tandom.

yes,morw water vapor/cloud cover can mean different things, but the feedback is definitely not linear.

Low level clouds, being thicker, reflect alot more IR & Energy in General, and the decreases we've seen would support a hefty amoutn of warming.

[Vandy]

Uhhh, thats the whole point. The Decrease in Low Level Cloud Cover IS a positive...thats the whole point, it leads to warming. However, Higher CO2 would suggest more Low Level Clouds/WV...thus the two are not working in tandom.

yes,morw water vapor/cloud cover can mean different things, but the feedback is definitely not linear.

Low level clouds, being thicker, reflect alot more IR & Energy in General, and the decreases we've seen would support a hefty amoutn of warming.

I was referring to your comment that "the feedback is not positive," but now I'm not sure what you were referring to there. And sorry to be a stickler, but the low level clouds aren't reflecting IR, they are absorbing and then reemitting it in all directions. Makes a big difference in the thermodynamics

I haven't really kept up with the research in this area, but I don't necessarily see why increased CO2 (and thus by extension higher temperatures) would lead to more low level clouds. Yes, WV concentrations could go up, but temperatures would be rising too. You don't get clouds until you get saturation, and a warmer troposphere would mean you would need a higher vapor pressure to reach saturation. Thus if temperatures force the saturation vapor pressure to rise faster than the actual vapor pressure, then you'd expect cloud base to increase globally on average. That could be an explanation for the increased levels of mid-level clouds at the expense of low level clouds.

[WeatherRusty]

I was referring to your comment that "the feedback is not positive," but now I'm not sure what you were referring to there. And sorry to be a stickler, but the low level clouds aren't reflecting IR, they are absorbing and then reemitting it in all directions. Makes a big difference in the thermodynamics

I haven't really kept up with the research in this area, but I don't necessarily see why increased CO2 (and thus by extension higher temperatures) would lead to more low level clouds. Yes, WV concentrations could go up, but temperatures would be rising too. You don't get clouds until you get saturation, and a warmer troposphere would mean you would need a higher vapor pressure to reach saturation. Thus if temperatures force the saturation vapor pressure to rise faster than the actual vapor pressure, then you'd expect cloud base to increase globally on average. That could be an explanation for the increased levels of mid-level clouds at the expense of low level clouds.

Another way of stating your point is that lapse rates should not change and that averaged relative humidities remain near constant, which is evident in the output of all GCM's. What will happen is the tropics and the associated barotropic zone will expand poleward.

[BethesdaWX]

I was referring to your comment that "the feedback is not positive," but now I'm not sure what you were referring to there. And sorry to be a stickler, but the low level clouds aren't reflecting IR, they are absorbing and then reemitting it in all directions. Makes a big difference in the thermodynamics

I haven't really kept up with the research in this area, but I don't necessarily see why increased CO2 (and thus by extension higher temperatures) would lead to more low level clouds. Yes, WV concentrations could go up, but temperatures would be rising too. You don't get clouds until you get saturation, and a warmer troposphere would mean you would need a higher vapor pressure to reach saturation. Thus if temperatures force the saturation vapor pressure to rise faster than the actual vapor pressure, then you'd expect cloud base to increase globally on average. That could be an explanation for the increased levels of mid-level clouds at the expense of low level clouds.

huh?

No. Low level clouds (cumulus, Nimbus, Nimbo/Strato, etc) reflect more IR/Light energy than any other group (mid/upper), and due to precipitation within, also have an additional cooling effect surface wise. Their proximity is also a cooling factor.

[Vandy]

huh?

No. Low level clouds (cumulus, Nimbus, Nimbo/Strato, etc) reflect more IR/Light energy than any other group (mid/upper), and due to precipitation within, also have an additional cooling effect surface wise. Their proximity is also a cooling factor.

None of this has any effect on the hypothesis that CO2 leads to warming. Precipitation does not have a net cooling effect on the surface because the water that precipitates came from the surface (with the notable exception of snow due to indirect albedo effects). You have a net conservation of latent heat. Low level clouds do indeed cool the surface because they reflect visible radiation from the sun. I'm not sure what you mean by proximity is a cooling factor.

Reflecting IR radiation does not make any sense. From Petty's book on atmospheric radiation: "As soon as you move into either the UV or near-IR bands, [the single scattering albedo] quickly decreases to well below 1, settling into the range of 0.5-0.8 for most of the IR band. For even SSA = 0.8, the albedo of a thick cloud is only around 15%."

The point is, clouds do not REFLECT IR radiation. They instead absorb it, and then re-emit the IR both to the surface and to space. It is in this way that they trap IR radiation. This is important thermodynamically because the absorption of IR warms clouds, which would not happen if they reflected the IR. Furthermore, clouds are an excellent absorber of IR radiation. So well in fact, that optical thicknesses are only the scale of meters. Thus the efficiency of low level clouds is similar to that of high level clouds in absorbing IR. Both do a good job of trapping IR radiation from the surface. The low level clouds however, are much better at reflecting visible from the sun than the thin upper level clouds. Thus, if you have more thin high clouds and less thick low level clouds, you should expect a net imbalance in radiative transfer due to similar levels of trapped IR but increased levels of visible reaching the ground, resulting in net heating.

Now obviously dynamics can and does make things more complicated, but that is the basis of how the radiative transfer works. I doubt you'll find any debate on these absorptive and reflective properties of water vapor.

[Saggy]

A warming climate could have unintended side effects like more amplification of weather patterns leading to stronger cold spells (at least before warming overwhelms the signal), so it isn't implausible. But I agree with you that statements such as those are not a good way to build public confidence.

I think a lot of the problem stems from the mingling of the scientific community with the public at large. In the atmospheric research community, theories are expected to evolve and those developments are typically welcomed. But the public, understandably, expects consistency in the message if they are to make policy and lifestyle changes. Honestly, if we do indeed continue warming, I have a feeling that by the time the body of evidence becomes irrefutable by even the most ardent skepticists, that we will probably be running low on most fossil fuels anyway (besides perhaps the worst of em, coal).

To be clear.. I've followed Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts work...and that may have influenced me. What I'm yearning for is a singular voice that can repudiate them without 200 underlings responding or making predictions that don't come true.

I've been alive for several decades and I've heard that by now I should be fighting off alligators or beating back a glacier in 2011. If we are at a science that is settled..then I should be able to see some concrete proof off that by now. I'm still confused.

[BethesdaWX]

None of this has any effect on the hypothesis that CO2 leads to warming. Precipitation does not have a net cooling effect on the surface because the water that precipitates came from the surface (with the notable exception of snow due to indirect albedo effects). You have a net conservation of latent heat. Low level clouds do indeed cool the surface because they reflect visible radiation from the sun. I'm not sure what you mean by proximity is a cooling factor.

Reflecting IR radiation does not make any sense. From Petty's book on atmospheric radiation: "As soon as you move into either the UV or near-IR bands, [the single scattering albedo] quickly decreases to well below 1, settling into the range of 0.5-0.8 for most of the IR band. For even SSA = 0.8, the albedo of a thick cloud is only around 15%."

The point is, clouds do not REFLECT IR radiation. They instead absorb it, and then re-emit the IR both to the surface and to space. It is in this way that they trap IR radiation. This is important thermodynamically because the absorption of IR warms clouds, which would not happen if they reflected the IR. Furthermore, clouds are an excellent absorber of IR radiation. So well in fact, that optical thicknesses are only the scale of meters. Thus the efficiency of low level clouds is similar to that of high level clouds in absorbing IR. Both do a good job of trapping IR radiation from the surface. The low level clouds however, are much better at reflecting visible from the sun than the thin upper level clouds. Thus, if you have more thin high clouds and less thick low level clouds, you should expect a net imbalance in radiative transfer due to similar levels of trapped IR but increased levels of visible reaching the ground, resulting in net heating.

Now obviously dynamics can and does make things more complicated, but that is the basis of how the radiative transfer works. I doubt you'll find any debate on these absorptive and reflective properties of water vapor.

Did I say it debunked CO2 warming? No I didn't. I usually don't even go there.

Point is, Low Level Clouds have a Much Stronger Cooling effect than any others, no matter how you slice it, and Increasing CO2 would not cause them to dwindle. When avged out, all clouds, the net # is still a 3% loss...or, in other words, enough to cause alot of warming...

Do you understand how Snow reflecting sunlight has a cooling effect? Now, clouds do the same thing. No matter how you twist the facts, it turns out the same.

Speaking of Solar.....

Match

[nzucker]

Speaking of Solar.....

I don't buy the argument that the slight plateau in solar activity since the 1970s means the warming is necessarily anthropogenic. We've had a consistently higher than average level of solar activity in the last 150 years; even if the increase plateaued in the 1970s, that's still a constant high level of above average sunspots/flux. So it could still cause warming. Obviously, we know much of the warming since 1979 has been anthropogenic since we aren't radiating as well at the absorption spectrum of CO2 on satellite analysis, but that doesn't mean solar can't be a part of the climate change too. And a minimum like the one we've just started could have vast, nearly unimaginable effects on lowering global temperatures and causing more high-latitude blocking patterns. We're already starting to see this with the record strong NAO/AO block in Summer 2009, Winter 09-10, and December 2010 at the start of this cold winter.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't buy the argument that the slight plateau in solar activity since the 1970s means the warming is necessarily anthropogenic. We've had a consistently higher than average level of solar activity in the last 150 years; even if the increase plateaued in the 1970s, that's still a constant high level of above average sunspots/flux. So it could still cause warming. Obviously, we know much of the warming since 1979 has been anthropogenic since we aren't radiating as well at the absorption spectrum of CO2 on satellite analysis, but that doesn't mean solar can't be a part of the climate change too. And a minimum like the one we've just started could have vast, nearly unimaginable effects on lowering global temperatures and causing more high-latitude blocking patterns. We're already starting to see this with the record strong NAO/AO block in Summer 2009, Winter 09-10, and December 2010 at the start of this cold winter.

I guess thats where we disagree... I do tend to believe that a small fraction of our warming is anthropogenic, whether it be Slight CO2 warming, UHI, Deforestation, etc. We'll see in time I guess

Plateau? SC23 was the strongest one we've seen in many ways, 1970's dip coinsided with the cold 1970's as you can see

[Vandy]

Did I say it debunked CO2 warming? No I didn't. I usually don't even go there.

Point is, Low Level Clouds have a Much Stronger Cooling effect than any others, no matter how you slice it, and Increasing CO2 would not cause them to dwindle. When avged out, all clouds, the net # is still a 3% loss...or, in other words, enough to cause alot of warming...

Do you understand how Snow reflecting sunlight has a cooling effect? Now, clouds do the same thing. No matter how you twist the facts, it turns out the same.

I have not twisted any facts... merely presented some. As I've said many times, clouds have two effects... cooling through reflecting visible as you state, but also warming through absorbing and emitting IR. Ignoring the second effect won't make it go away.

Here's another source stating the same thing: "Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

And while you did not state that it debunks CO2 warming, you imply it by arguing that increasing CO2 should mean more low level clouds, and then posting data that says low level clouds have decreased. But you still haven't provided any reasoning for why CO2 should result in increased low level clouds, except for stating that there would be more WV while completely ignoring the other half of the coin in that you would need higher WV anyway to reach saturation with increased troposphere temperatures.

Anyway, if you don't want to "believe" me, that's fine... but these are pretty basic physics principles here. Ironically, it sounds like were about on the same page overall. I feel that CO2 has to have a warming effect, but that IPCC predictions probably overemphasize that connection compared to other natural forcings. None the less, I'd like to see us move away from carbon for geopolitical and pollution reasons, regardless of AGW.

[nzucker]

I guess thats where we disagree... I do tend to believe that a small fraction of our warming is anthropogenic, whether it be Slight CO2 warming, UHI, Deforestation, etc. We'll see in time I guess

Plateau? SC23 was the strongest one we've seen in many ways, 1970's dip coinsided with the cold 1970's as you can see

I think very little of the warming between 1850 and 1950 was anthropogenic (mostly solar and natural shift from Little Ice Age to a milder climate), but I do think humans may be responsible for a decent proportion of the warming since 1950. We can't deny we've had a tremendous impact on the planet's atmosphere and ecosystems, and carbon dioxide approaching 400ppm is just one sign of this. Like you, I believe estimates of future warming are exaggerated; even if the effect from carbon increases as our emissions increase and some positive feedback loops come into play, the solar minimum and -PDO should blunt this influence, at least for the next 40-50 years. That's why I wouldn't go out on a limb and predict 4C of warming by 2100. But I wouldn't predict an ice age either; as Arrhenius' experiments proved, our actions have a notable effect on the planet's atmosphere and its ability to radiate heat. And you can't change the basic physics of the CO2 molecule, even though its role in changes in future weather and global temperatures has probably been overemphasized for political reasons.

[GaWx]

Per Accuweather today: New York Times in 2000: "But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown."

NYC has averaged 31.7"/year since that article was written! The normal is only 27" During the last 8 yrs, the avg. has been 34.5 inches!

So, the NYT can't have it both ways. Per Accuwx:

"The real point is here we have a classic example of newspaper, obvious agenda-driven, trying to make a point about global warming causing the lack of snow, then they have the gall to print articles saying that the reason we are getting snow is because of the reason they were saying was causing the lack of snow."

[nzucker]

Per Accuweather today: New York Times in 2000: "But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown."

NYC has averaged 31.7"/year since that article was written! The normal is only 27" During the last 8 yrs, the avg. has been 34.5 inches!

So, the NYT can't have it both ways. Per Accuwx:

"The real point is here we have a classic example of newspaper, obvious agenda-driven, trying to make a point about global warming causing the lack of snow, then they have the gall to print articles saying that the reason we are getting snow is because of the reason they were saying was causing the lack of snow."

This is what the global warming movement always does...the theory constantly changes to fit their ends. If it's a warm winter, it's because the global temperature has increased. If it's a cold winter, it's because global warming has changed the Siberian snow cover which affects the AO/NAO. If it's a heat wave, it's because of global temperatures being warmer by a few tenths of a degree. If it's a big snowstorm, it's because there's more moisture in the air. If it's a snowless winter, it's because it's too warm from global climate change to snow. You can never argue with these people because they always change the goalposts. The mainstream media play along since it's a good story to print and sell copy with.

[Vandy]

The mainstream media play along since it's a good story to print and sell copy with.

It is largely the mainstream media driving it (not playing along), together with a few attention starved scientists. Most of the people in the field do good honest work like in any other field. You don't hear about them because they don't make incendiary statements.

[nzucker]

It is largely the mainstream media driving it (not playing along), together with a few attention starved scientists. Most of the people in the field do good honest work like in any other field. You don't hear about them because they don't make incendiary statements.

Yes, definitely agree. There are many great climate researchers but a few bad apples spoil the barrel as always.