EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:21 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
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 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:

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.


What is CAGW or climate disruption exactly? There is a subjective nature to that terminology that you have already claimed negates the use of any such data to form a clear conclusion.

_________________
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 4:45 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:

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.


What is CAGW or climate disruption exactly? There is a subjective nature to that terminology that you have already claimed negates the use of any such data to form a clear conclusion.


Oh, come on.

Catastrophic involves any impacts that are bad to the human race.

That is not subjective.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
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.



Snowy123 wrote:
Good grief, here we go again.


Yes, and if you would stop making unupported claims we would not be doing it again and again.

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


Anything is possible, but that is not evidence of the effect on cloud cover in any fashion. It is a first step in a series of "if" steps.

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


Actually it IS one of the main nucleating substances as shown by other research, just not one that cosmic rays have any major impact upon. The fact there is NO evidence of the mechanism that will impact cloud formation from cosmic rays alone or with the multiplication factor of other nucleating agents proves my point very well. Where is the empirical evidence of the mechanism that cosmic rays use to form clouds? H2SO4 and NH4 are not sufficiently supporting to show any measurable impact much less the majority that you have repeatedly quoted as being possible IF some mechanism can be found to make it work.

_________________
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 4:53 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

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


What is CAGW or climate disruption exactly? There is a subjective nature to that terminology that you have already claimed negates the use of any such data to form a clear conclusion.


Snowy123 wrote:
Oh, come on.

Catastrophic involves any impacts that are bad to the human race.

That is not subjective.



Really? ANY impacts that are bad to the human race? That would make those who signed fools. Any increase in temperature is going to have at least one bad impact even if it is just the increase in cooling and refrigeration costs.

Most people view catastrophic as being a bit more than anything bad.

_________________
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 4:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:
Catastrophic involves any impacts that are bad to the human race.

That is not subjective.



Interesting so you think that anyone who thinks that changing the composition of the atmosphere into a state not seen for millions of years will have bad consequences is an extremist?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:02 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Adj. 1. catastrophic - extremely harmful; bringing physical or financial ruin; "a catastrophic depression"; "catastrophic illness"; "a ruinous course of action"

or anything bad? :-k #-o

_________________
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: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:26 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
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.



Well snow this group disagrees with the sun being the cause of the past warming for 30 years. As a matter of fact it is mostly summed up as no cause. They didn't specify a certain number and you are right. Does it mean we are responsible to a significant degree. I would take significant as more than 50% myslef. I could answer that yes. And that's what the 97% 50% peer reviewed scientists answered yes to. We are responsible. Tell me when you get that mechanism going for all your favorite hypothesies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:53 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Snowy123 wrote:
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.

Yes they have. The recent fires in Colorado did not add more CO2 to the atmosphere ? heating water does not produce evaporation ? melting permafrost does not release methane to the atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE&feature=player_detailpage


Quote:
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.

No the opposite is true if we were to take take the earth as a simple black body the temperature would be some 30 deg C cooler than is observed.

Quote:
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.

You are I think are referring to the what is called the tropical hot spot which has been discussed at great length but in reality is has nothing to do with the green house effect it is simply a predicted consequence of higher global temperatures regardless of the cause.
Quote:
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.

The data is a problem here as much of it was based on balloon data which is know to have some fairly serious errors in it.

Quote:
The figure, from Douglass et. al 2007 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.

That is very confused. Lets keep it simple the rate at which temperature falls with height is expected to not be as quick, due to GHGs as it where holding on to the heat. This in turn means that the atmosphere is warmer at height where it is easier for the heat to escape to space rather than being reflected to the surface. This is in fact an example of a negative feedback due GHGs but if you accept that it is indeed true then you also have to accept the rest of the predictions in relation to near surface warming.

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

Please clarify whether you mean relative or specific humidity it makes a huge difference.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:25 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Snowy123 wrote:
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.


Snowy123 wrote:
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?


Not at all based on these figures we have the atmosphere weighs 5.1X10 ^18 Kilograms
The ocean weighs 1.37X10^21 kilograms
The ocean is 268 times heavier than the atmosphere but it takes some 4 times more energy to heat up 1 kg of water than the same amount of air therefore it takes it takes at least 1000 times more heat to warm the ocean by the same amount as the air. If the ocean is warmer by 0.09 Degs then 1000 X0.09 =90 deg C would be the corresponding heating for the atmosphere this suggests your estimate maybe a tad high if we use that line of argument.Even if we assume we are only referring to the top 700 meters we can now reduce that figure by a factor of 5.4 but we still can only get down to 16.6 Deg C.

warmair wrote:
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.


Snowy123 wrote:
Do you have a source for the first sentence?


Based on the above reasoning that the oceans absorb much more heat than the atmosphere
and that the southern hemisphere is 80% ocean as opposed to the northern hemisphere which is only 60% ocean. The accepted figures are 93% goes into heating the oceans with the balance heating the atmosphere. Using these figures we get 74.4 % of the heat goes to the southern oceans and 56% goes into the northern oceans. But this translates into a smaller temperature increase in the southern atmosphere. It may possibly explain why the southern oceans transport heat to the northern ocean via sea currents.

Quote:
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.

The main cooling aerosol actually starts out as a gas so I doubt that the above has much relevance. I think there is a confusion here between aerosols and particulates ie dust, but nevertheless the cooling is related to moisture droplets which take on average 8 days to precipitate out of the atmosphere. The question then becomes what area will this spread out over in 8 days but even worse for your argument we know that the aerosol effect is more prominent over the oceans due to the way in which certain gases released by organisms react with sulphate aerosols. So taking the area of land that has high levels of aerosols is not a smart way to do the calculation.
The best examples of aerosol cooling are provided by major volcanic eruptions where we can clearly see their cooling effect on a global scale despite the fact that they are tiny by comparison.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:17 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
A few notes on climate sensitivity
Sensitivity means how much warming we can expect from one extra watt of surface radiation.
This is expressed as °C/(W/m2)
Several methods have been used to arrive at an answer
the two I like are:-
1 The temperature during the last ice age was 5.5 Deg c cooler than today and the difference in surface radiation is estimated to be 7.3W/m2 giving a figure of 0.75°C/(W/m2)

2 The difference between solar maximum and solar minimum is 1.3 W/m2 but this is the amount of power arriving at the earth's plane this has to be reduced by 30% to account for albedo and by a factor of 4 because the earth is sphere and not flat. The temperature difference from peak to trough is estimated to be about 0.18 °C. This translates to 0.2275 W/m2 against 0.18°C or 0.79 °C/(W/m2) but it is probably an underestimate due to lag effects.

There is no dispute that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase surface surface radiation by 3.7 W/m2. There is a high level of confidence in this figure. It is often expressed in the form that a doubling of CO2 would directly increase temperature by 1 °C provided no other factors are involved but they are so we get:-
3.7 W/m2 for CO2
and 0.77°C/(W/m2)
Therefore we can expect the temperature to rise by at least 2.85°C for a doubling of CO2.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group