EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:21 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:29 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


So why does the correlation with only a possible mechanism that is yet to be evidenced gain more support from you than the similar correlation with a highly evidenced mechanism if you are a truly skpetical person?


It is not a possible mechanism. I have posted many times that the mechanism is confirmed, but it is uncertain with regard to the degree of how strong the mechanism is, just like with the CO2 mechanism.


The mechanism is not confimed because there has been no evidence of any nucleation of sufficient size or sufficient quanity connected to cosmic rays to create any change in cloud cover. The addition of the two most common and most expected multipliers did not alter the insufficiency of the proposed mechanism.

Quote:
http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.


Yes, but no effect on the cloud level formation which is the mechanism that must be shown. There is no mechanism shown that can impact the formation of clouds, so unless and until there is such a mechanism evidenced there is no mechanism outside of an hypothesis, which has evidence to show it is less likely than first thought.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
In the way the statement was framed, yes there was 97% agreement amongst 50% peer reviewed climate scientists.


http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?




I would answer yes to both questions.

Do you know what that means?

This poll documenting any "consensus" is worthless.

This is because a "significant contributing factor" is an extremely subjective term. A significant contributing factor could mean 10%, 40%, or 90%.

It does not prove anything about what most climate scientists believe is the dominant cause of the 20th Century warming.


So, this also means the petition/letter documentation is also worthless for the same reasons. Fair enough, that leaves us with the documentation of concensus via numbers and conclusions of published papers, which supports the 97% agreement determination.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:48 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


So why does the correlation with only a possible mechanism that is yet to be evidenced gain more support from you than the similar correlation with a highly evidenced mechanism if you are a truly skpetical person?


It is not a possible mechanism. I have posted many times that the mechanism is confirmed, but it is uncertain with regard to the degree of how strong the mechanism is, just like with the CO2 mechanism.

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events ... skydaekke/

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.


Nucleation mechanisms without the requirement of cosmic ray influence are well known. The mechanism for cloud formation relies on aerosols, which relies on nucleation, which is shown to be separate from the impact of cosmic rays. The cosmic rays are less of a potential mechanism for cloud formation than concentrations of various nitrates, sulfurs, and VOCs

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10733 ... 3-2010.pdf

Abstract. Nucleation from the gas phase is an important source of aerosol particles in the Earth's atmosphere, contributing to the number of cloud condensation nuclei, which form cloud droplets. We have implemented in the aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM a new scheme for neutral and charged nucleation of sulfuric acid and water based on laboratory data, and nucleation of an organic compound and sulfuric acid using a parametrization of cluster activation based on field measurements. We give details of the implementation, compare results with observations, and investigate the role of the individual aerosol nucleation mechanisms for clouds and the Earth's radiative budget. The results of our simulations are most consistent with observations when neutral and charged nucleation of sulfuric acid proceed throughout the troposphere and nucleation due to cluster activation is limited to the forested boundary layer. The globally averaged annual mean contributions of the individual nucleation processes to total absorbed solar short-wave radiation via the direct, semi-direct, indirect cloud-albedo and cloud-lifetime effects in our simulations are −1.15 W/m2 for charged H2SO4/H2O nucleation, −0.235 W/m2 for cluster activation, and −0.05 W/m2 for neutral H2SO4/H2O nucleation. The overall effect of nucleation is −2.55 W/m2, which exceeds the sum of the individual terms due to feedbacks and interactions in the model. Aerosol nucleation contributes over the oceans with −2.18 W/m2 to total absorbed solar short-wave radiation, compared to −0.37 W/m2 over land. We explain the higher effect of aerosol nucleation on Earth's radiative budget over the oceans with the larger area covered by ocean clouds, due to the larger contrast in albedo between clouds and the ocean surface compared to continents, and the larger susceptibility of pristine clouds owing to the saturation of effects. The large effect of charged nucleation in our simulations is not in contradiction with small effects seen in local measurements: over southern Finland, where cluster activation proceeds efficiently, we find that charged nucleation of sulfuric acid and water contributes on average less than 10% to ultrafine aerosol concentrations, in good agreement with observations.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:21 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
warmair wrote:


On the other hand there are numerous positive feedbacks. Particularly that higher temperatures increase the amount of water vapour in the air (7% per 1 deg C) which is again a stronger GHG than CO2. Loss of ice cover over the sea changes the surface from reflecting 90% of the radiation to absorbing in excess of 80%.
Higher temperatures of themselves also increase the amount of carbon based GHGs in the atmosphere EG forest fires, increased methane emission's from tundra and peat areas



None of these positive feedbacks have actually been proven or observed, actually. If the net atmospheric feedbacks are negative, then the positive snow-albedo feedback would not be quite as great. With sea ice declines over the Arctic, you get more cloud cover, resulting in a negative feedback over the Arctic.

It has been observed that the climate system emits more OLR at a rate that is greater than a black body and is greater than the climate models, suggesting negative cloud feedback and neutral water vapor feedback.

The models had the greatest warming at 200-300 hPa, which is associated with a negative lapse rate feedback, as the upper troposphere in the models is warming faster than the surface.Once again, according to observations, we can see that there is a serious discrepency between the models and the observations at various locations in the upper troposphere.

Image

If you think that Climate4you.com is cherry picking by selecting the HatAT dataset, look at Douglass et. al 2007, which has 3 MORE datasets that show that there is a serious discrepency between modeled and observational temperatures in the Tropical Troposphere.

Image

The figure, from Douglass et. al 2007 (Source: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... _wrong.pdf) shows that the models were predicting a negative lapse rate feedback, which is seen with the higher temperature trend in the middle to upper troposphere than at the surface. Observations do not show any of this. They show that the lapse rate is positive, and that the surface is warming faster than the upper troposphere, consistent with a positive lapse rate feedback. The strongest negative lapse rate feedbacks in the IPCC GCMs were constantly associated with a the strongest positive water vapor feedbacks. The relationship between the two appears to be robust, so the lack of a negative lapse rate indicates that the water vapor feedback might not be positive, and even negative.


Image

Or the fact that humidity levels are remaining constant as temperatures increase, as seen with Wang et. al 2008

Image

And Sun et. al 2008 which finds that the negative cloud albedo feedback during ENSO events has been underestimated in climate models, and that the positive water vapor feedback in models ha been overestiamted.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... HistoryKey

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:54 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
The climate is highly sensitive to water vapor changes in the upper troposphere where there is not such a high concentration of water vapor, and is relatively insensitive to changes in tropospheric water vapor in the boundary layer where there are high concentrations of water vapor, which can be seen in Spencer and Braswell 1997.

Thus, it is possible to have an increase in water vapor in the boundary layer, but still get a negative water vapor feedback, as Paltridge et. al 2009 shows.

A bunch of papers by Pielke, Douglass, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer etc. also show net negative feedback in the climate system.

For example, on average, the climate system radiates much more heat due to a radiative forcing than do models, suggesting a net-negative feedback, possibly confirming Lindzen's iris hypothesis:

Image

Image

Also see Spencer et. al 2007 for such a diagnosis of negative climate feedback.

We explore the daily evolution of tropical intraseasonal
oscillations in satellite-observed tropospheric temperature,
precipitation, radiative fluxes, and cloud properties. The
warm/rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen
oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative
input into the ocean-atmosphere system, with longwave
heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during
the rainy phase. The increase in longwave cooling is traced
to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting
Lindzen’s ‘‘infrared iris’’ hypothesis of climate stabilization.

These observations should be considered in the testing of
cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain
sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming
prediction.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:01 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
warmair wrote:

No you don't get it that just because the size of something is small does not mean that it can't have a big impact for example a catalyst can completely change the outcome and speed of chemical reactions even though they may be present in very small quantities. On the other side of the coin nitrogen has fairly minor effects on the atmosphere despite being the largest component.

In the case of your cell phones if the heat from them is not allowed to escape the room, the temperature will rise, but the reality is this becomes harder and harder as the temperature rises. As a simpler example buildings have been designed which are heated only by the heat from the occupants.


I am not saying that just because CO2 makes up a small portion of the atmosphere does not mean that it would not have a large impact.


The point is that you can not use the empirical proof of CO2 being a GHG whose concentrations have increased as proof for causation.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:30 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
warmair wrote:

No you don't get it that just because the size of something is small does not mean that it can't have a big impact for example a catalyst can completely change the outcome and speed of chemical reactions even though they may be present in very small quantities. On the other side of the coin nitrogen has fairly minor effects on the atmosphere despite being the largest component.

In the case of your cell phones if the heat from them is not allowed to escape the room, the temperature will rise, but the reality is this becomes harder and harder as the temperature rises. As a simpler example buildings have been designed which are heated only by the heat from the occupants.


I am not saying that just because CO2 makes up a small portion of the atmosphere does not mean that it would not have a large impact.


The point is that you can not use the empirical proof of CO2 being a GHG whose concentrations have increased as proof for causation.


Of course you can. Moreso than you can use the correlation you like to use as an implied causation to refute the empirical evidence.

Compound A is a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gases have measured prevention of energy loss.

Prevention of energy loss causes the energy to be retained as heat, which can be quantified.

Thus, the increase in concentration of Compound A is empirical evidence of the increase in temperature due to retention of energy. This does not mean the global temperature will rise that specific amount as there are other variables which can have an effect on the final temperature, but the causation can be easily shown.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:31 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
warmair wrote:

The figure is 1.3 deg C based on sensitivity of 3 deg C.
The equivalent of 0.4 Deg C ended up in the oceans and 0.9 Deg C in the atmosphere. Bear in mind that the ocean increase in temperature is in fact much less as water has a much higher heat capacity than air. Just be patient we are getting there.

If you do not accept that level of sensitivity then how are you going to explain the ice ages of the last 4 million years or for that matter how the earth was much hotter than today, 100s of millions of years ago, despite the fact that the sun was not emitting as much heat as today.


The only problem is that a recent paper by Levitus et. al that found that over the last 55 years the oceans have warmed by only 0.09 Degrees C.

That kind of puts a dent in your high sensitivity hypothesis, especially when considering that at least some of that increase could be due to natural causes, doesn't it?

As for your last paragraph, it requires an answer of two words: Cosmic Rays.

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/docu ... 0Drive.pdf

The CRF alone
can explain ~66% of the total variance in
the temperature data.


Quote:
Ah you don't understand that the warming caused by other GHGs in the atmosphere such as methane and NO2 etc are balanced by the aerosol cooling effect.


Once again, if aerosoles were creating this enormous cooling that you speak of, we would see the greatest cooling effects in the cities and the northern hemisphere. We don't observe any of those things happening.

Quote:
The southern hemisphere is warming faster than the northern hemisphere when you take into account the deference in proportions of land and sea.
The temperature of a city is strongly influenced by local weather conditions ie how windy it is and its latitude. The major effect of Aerosols is to increase cloud cover and to make clouds more reflective therefore it is reasonable to assume that the effect lasts several days by which time the airmass may well have gone 1/4 of the way round the globe.


Do you have a source for the first sentence?

Image

The impacts of aerosoles are short lived and VERY local as you can see in the image above.

Warren Meyer had some interesting calculations with the cooling impact of aerosols. Assuming that aerosoles cover about 40% of the land area (which is about 10% of the Earth's Surface) then it would take 10 Degrees C of local cooling to equate to 1 Degree C of global cooling.

So in order to prove that aerosoles have created a 0.2 Degree C Global Cooling, you need to provethat they have created a 2 Degree C local cooling, which no one has done so far, therefore your claim of aerosoles masking warming is unsubstantiated.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:40 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
There is no mechanism shown that can impact the formation of clouds


Yes there is.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, this also means the petition/letter documentation is also worthless for the same reasons. Fair enough, that leaves us with the documentation of concensus via numbers and conclusions of published papers, which supports the 97% agreement determination.


I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.

So you agree with the Oregon petition that Greenhouse Gases would not cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's Climate in the near future?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
There is no mechanism shown that can impact the formation of clouds


Yes there is.


Really? Where is there any data on the actual mechanism that Cosmic rays BY THEMSELVES have ANY impact on cloud formation? There is a mechanism that shows a small amount of nucleation with cosmic ray exposure, but not of sufficient size to impact formation of clouds and especially not to impact them as much as you wish to imply.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:57 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, this also means the petition/letter documentation is also worthless for the same reasons. Fair enough, that leaves us with the documentation of concensus via numbers and conclusions of published papers, which supports the 97% agreement determination.


I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.


Just pointing out that you must also agree that there is no concensus against Global warming based on polls or poll type documents. Thus, the only remaining method of determination of concensus in the scientific support is in the number of papers published and the conclusions drawn from them. That just also happens to support the 97% concensus view of climate experts in favor of the climate impacts by humanity.

Quote:
So you agree with the Oregon petition that Greenhouse Gases would not cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's Climate in the near future?


No, there is no specification of the subjective variables "catastrophic" nor "near future" to base any such determination.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:05 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, this also means the petition/letter documentation is also worthless for the same reasons. Fair enough, that leaves us with the documentation of concensus via numbers and conclusions of published papers, which supports the 97% agreement determination.


I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.

So you agree with the Oregon petition that Greenhouse Gases would not cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's Climate in the near future?


We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


Note there is no reference to global warming or climate change, just catastrophic heating and climate disruption, so the the "concensus" is what?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:26 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Note there is no reference to global warming or climate change, just catastrophic heating and climate disruption, so the the "concensus" is what?


Saying that someone questions CAGW, makes them a skeptic.

I would have to agree that the phrase "near-term" in the sentence is quite ambiguous.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:28 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
There is no mechanism shown that can impact the formation of clouds


Yes there is.


Really? Where is there any data on the actual mechanism that Cosmic rays BY THEMSELVES have ANY impact on cloud formation? There is a mechanism that shows a small amount of nucleation with cosmic ray exposure, but not of sufficient size to impact formation of clouds and especially not to impact them as much as you wish to imply.



Good grief, here we go again.

The small particles formed could grow into Clouds, it is not certain how many can grow, as stated in the paper.

And the fact that H2SO4 is not the main nucleating substance does NOT mean that Cosmic Rays have a small impact on climate change.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group