A little book ‘Rough Guide to Weather’ by Robert Henson states that:
1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour
2. As temperatures rise, the oceans warm up and release extra water vapour
3. This water vapour then absorbs energy and radiates some of it to the ground, thus helping global temperatures to rise even more
So the idea is that the warming effects of carbon dioxide will be amplified by increasing water vapour.
But this is NOT what the latest data from the latest satellite shows.
Data from NASA’s Aqua Satellite, which was only launched in 2002, shows that water vapour and high altitude cloud cover don’t necessarily increase when there is warming. Rather weather processes limit the total greenhouse effect in proportion to available sunlight. This can happen in a variety of ways through the hydrological cycle, for example low level clouds release water vapour from the atmosphere when it rains.
The new data from the Aqua Satellite was probably the most important issue discussed at the recent ‘2008 International Conference on Climate Change’. The new findings were part of a presentation by Roy Spencer who leads the team analysing all the data from NASA’s Aqua Satellite.
I have previously mentioned these findings in a blog post and a recent article in OLO but the importance of the finding for climate change science and policy seems to not be understood – or ignored.
These findings are not being disputed by the meteorological community and will require an overhaul of current UN IPCC climate models.
I will talk about this issue this afternoon in an interview with Michael Duffy on ABC Radio National’s Counterpoint at 4pm Sydney time (about 5 hours from now). Those in other parts of the world can listen through the internet – find out how at the Counterpoint link here.
——————
My first blog post on ‘global warming for dummies’ was posted some time ago and was also about the temperature record:
October 26, 2005
Global Warming for Dummies
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000959.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Ignored?
The date on Spencer’s paper is? August 2007. And he has another article in press in J Climate. Science doesn’t work that quickly.
Will it require an overhaul? Jen does this effect extend beyond the Madden Julian Oscillation? Reaction from other climatologists is?
“As temperatures rise” – and what makes the temperatures rise in the first place. “Stuff” – “nature” or ?
Luke, I thought you thought that carbon dioxide was driving the increase in temperature – or had been at least over the last 100 years. The bottomline is the IPCC models have got it wrong – the hydrological cycle is a lot more complicated than they are.
” Rather weather processes limit the total greenhouse effect in proportion to available sunlight.”
Does this really surprise anyone – it’s called negative feedback.
Don’t think anyone ever thought it wasn’t complicated Jennifer. Or that the models weren’t simplifications.
Any idea of quantifying the effect? Or will it forever be ‘complicated’?
I guess the problem is that the temp doesn’t have to rise much for it to be a problem, a couple of degrees is enough. The Earth’s average temp seems to be bounded (in a geological sense) so it would seem that there is the ability for the climate to warm by around 10 degrees more. I suppose that’s when the negative feedbacks stop it warming more.
Golly Jen – no not that simple at all. The IPCC’s view is that temperature pattern of the last century is explained by a COMBINATION of solar , aerosol, and CO2/CH4 etc forcings including water vapour feedbacks. It’s not this or that. They have not presented an “either or” position at all. If you run with that the climate scientists will just roll their eyes.
The CO2 forcing has been dominant over the last 30 years and solar output fairly steady or invariant enough to not explain the warming.
The more fertile ground for debate is what the climate sensitivity to 2X CO2 is. You need to get into feedbacks to get above 1 degree C which is part of Christy’s line. The AGW side would also give you even more feedbacks from the biosphere.
By definition the climate models will have it wrong. But by how much is the question. The issue if to get the broad trends right.
In any case – the preoccupation with how many degrees C increase is somewhat trivial.
The real issue is what happens to the tails of distribution. Heatwaves, high impact rainfall. And what happens to circulation patterns e.g. the alarmist spectre of Australia ending up with a higher drought frequency (current La Nina withstanding). Drought and water resources are probably Australia’s most important issue.
Spencer’s paper is quite interesting but how generally one might apply it globally requires some further expert consideration.
“The more fertile ground for debate is what the climate sensitivity to 2X CO2 is.”
So where would you like to start.
3C for the concentration change from 62.5 to 125 parts per billion from the -18C proposed temp for no GHG perhaps. Make it Stephen Schwartz’s 1C per 2XCO2 if you like.
Luke,
You are just complicating a very simple fact – the models assumed that water vapour would behaviour in a particular way – and now we have some real data we find it doesn’t.
William Briggs had some advice for your mates over at Realclimate.org should something like this come to pass:
1. Abandon the model and seek a new career
2. Discover where the model went wrong; publish results admitting why and how you were wrong
3. Sit and wait: after all, the temperature is bound to increase sooner or later, hence validating your model
4. Believe that the model cannot be wrong, else so many people wouldn’t believe it, and so posit some new source that is “holding back” warming, and only if that new source weren’t there, your model would be perfect.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002723.html
So far you have tentatively responded along the lines of no.4 and added a heap of irrelevant text.
Please don’t keep filling this thread with waffle and irrelevant information.
So does anyone care to venture the cause of the Roman warm period, Medieval warm period and LIA?
Not a lot of CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and not a heck of a lot of agriculture by modern standards. So yeah, the temperature sometimes rises (and falls) because of “stuff”, “nature” or whatever, independent of CO2.
When I see a solid explanation of these that makes a prediction of the magnitude the modern warming and shows that it is “unprecedented” or seriously out of line with the natural explanations of the previous 3 events I’ll start taking the CO2 thing seriously.
Last I heard the GCM’s had no skill at regional climate forecasts. This hasn’t stopped the Commonwealth Science Fiction and and Industrial Research Organisation from making them. CSIRO must have some smart operations somewhere I hope but I haven’t seen any in my dealings with them.
As for a “sustainable” economy – think long and hard about what this means.
Well Jen – believe whatever you like then. You always have. But don’t wonder why the mainstream ignore if you make blatantly incorrect comments like CO2 alone has driven the last 100 years of temperature. You have a single article about the Madden Julian Oscillation & cloud effects (if you even know what that is) from someone who believes in intelligent design – good luck.
Jennifer, where is the data? I can’t find it on the AQUA or EOS pages.
Luke,
I think an apology is in order – to both myself and Roy Spencer.
You have inferred for about 2 years that carbon dioxide is a key driver of climate particularly over the last 100 years – not me.
And what has intelligent design got to do with this argument? Shall we black list all Christians. I am so tired of reputable scientists being smeared because they happen to challenge your world view. Try arguing on something of substance – stop smearing.
You smear, and the mainstream ignore Roy Spencer because he is seriously challenging the status quo and in particular the relevance of all UN IPCC climate models with the findings from the NASA Aqua satellite.
I certainly have not implied CO2 is the sole driver over the last 100 years! Which proves your ongoing inability to listen and read. Shame on you.
I think you are the one owing the apology having gone for the six shooter on my most reasonable comments.
(1) I have answered your question on CO2.
(2) I have said that Spencer’s paper is interesting. (Powerpoint & numerous blogs on the issue too)
(3) It’s a relatively recent paper – so to say it has been ignored by the establishment is a try-on and you know it.
(4) Do you seriously think that climate science has never changed or accommodated any changes hitherto. Cloud parameterisation is a major area of research. Spencer knows this – so does the climate science community.
(5) My comments on sensitivity are not irrelevant waffle – it’s what he’s on about as the key issue.
(6) I have conceded climate sensitivity if fertile ground for debate – so what’s your problem?
(7) And funny that luck should have it – but I being looking at Spencer’s work in the last few days actually. What does the conclusion of his paper says Jen. Presumably you’re read it? Bet not.
(8) It’s not the only bit of work in this area – where’s your literature review?
Utterly unimpressed.
(“Shall we black list all Christians” – I should say yes for stir value – no – but makes you wonder about desire for religious zeal in advocacy as opposed to just the science – especially if the proponent has adopted a highly political stance – I winced when Hansen said “all of Creation” too – yuk).
Well, I’m glad we finally agree that carbon dioxide is not a key driver of temperature? All this time I had thought Luke was worrying about an increase in carbon dioxide levels because of global warming. 😉
Roy Spencer’s point is that the hydrological cycle appears to have a stabiliting influence. He said during his lecture in New York that if there is one organising principle it is precipitation systems.
No – the impact of global warming from increasing carbon dioxide levels. Getting it the right way around helps.
Jennifer you seem to be playing with words here. There is a big difference between:
“carbon dioxide was driving the increase in temperature ”
“carbon dioxide is … a key driver of temperature”
Why would you suddenly whack in the word “key”?
Do you know where the AQUA data is? Has the AQUA data been used to quantify what we should expect?
Wow – some pedantics today.
Luke you have long championed that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
And Mr T you are being very selective and ignoring Lukes introduction of ‘alone’ into the phrase.
Very childish stuff guys.
Jennifer – “1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour
2. As temperatures rise, the oceans warm up and release extra water vapour
3. This water vapour then absorbs energy and radiates some of it to the ground, thus helping global temperatures to rise even more”
1. Never in dispute
2. What causes the temperature rise?
3. True enough
“So the idea is that the warming effects of carbon dioxide will be amplified by increasing water vapour.”
I am glad that you acknowledge the effects of CO2
“But this is NOT what the latest data from the latest satellite shows.”
Well this could be good news. Maybe we it turns out that we cannot stuff up the climate as badly as we think now. However this still says nothing about the ultimate temperature rise. As Luke says this will be of relevance when it is modelled and incorporated into a better guess of climate sensitivity.
“This can happen in a variety of ways through the hydrological cycle, for example low level clouds release water vapour from the atmosphere when it rains.”
And is the exact reason that water vapour is considered a feedback and not a forcing. Glad you have now settled all the previous arguments about water vapour.
Paul Borg,
It’s because there’s nothing here of substance to debate, so we get bored and then get into semantics. If we had actual info rather than just a vague bit of armwaving from Jennifer it may improve the quality. But I am not holding my breath. I think it’ll descend into what exactly is meant by the word “key”… A very interesting debate.
Mr T.,
The Satellite was collecting more than temperature data, but also data on water vapour and high and low level cloud formation and cloud evolution in the context of temperature anomalies.
I don’t know how this data is recorded and whether you can find access it.
You will see from an earlier blog post, that Roy Spencer has explained that much of what is observed is not easily modelled but that:
In an attempt to move with the opinion within his discipline that if you can’t “put it in numbers in a climate model all you are doing is hand waving”, Dr Spencer developed his own climate model, what he described as the ‘world’s smallest climate model’.
What the model showed was that the real climate system (as opposed to the virtual modelled system) is much less sensitive than most modellers assume…
conclusions including:
1. Recent research supports reduced climate sensitivity including that tropical intra-seasonal osciallations show strong negative feedback and observational estimates of feedback are likely bias due to neglect of natural variability, and
2. The accommodation of these results by climate modellers in their cloud parameterization could greatly reduce climate model projections of future warming.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002820.html
And there is much of substance to debate, but first there needs to be an acceptance of how current climate models work (including what drives them) and what information from the Aqua Satellite indicates…
Thanks Jennifer.
Perhaps the number 1 point would explain why the global warming we have seen seems to occur outside the tropics?
Ender, the quote is from a book, that I suggest will now need rewriting … like Luke you are incorrectly quoting me and confusing current consensus with new findings. I suggest you reread the post. Water vapour is a potential green house gas and it has been assumed feedback when there is warming is positive from water vapour … but this may not be the case.
Given Jen hasn’t actually read the paper under discussion; it may be interesting to reflect on the conclusion.
“This decrease in ice cloud
coverage is nominally supportive of Lindzen’s ‘‘infrared
iris’’ hypothesis. While the time scales addressed here are
short and not necessarily indicative of climate time scales, it
must be remembered that all moist convective adjustment
occurs on short time scales. Since these intraseasonal
oscillations represent a dominant mode of convective variability
in the tropical troposphere, their behavior should be
considered when testing the convective and cloud parameterizations
in climate models that are used to predict global
warming.”
which is far from saying “it’s all over”. Spencer is doing the right thing and resisting the urge to generalise.
Also given denialists scan the literature only for their own POV they inevitably miss tidbits like:
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback.
What’s that Jen – water vapour feedback driving warming over Europe. Don’t forget to mention that to your mate Duffy.
Perhaps we need a full literature review.
And try reading Jen before a priori deciding it’s waffle.
Or perhaps we might have a look at
Science 4 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5749, pp. 841 – 844
The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening
Brian J. Soden,1* Darren L. Jackson,2 V. Ramaswamy,3 M. D. Schwarzkopf,3 Xianglei Huang4
Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.
Tsk tsk tsk.
Luke you are smearing again. You are suggesting I can’t comment because I haven’t read a paper. I heard the lecture. I am happy for you to have an opinion based on your reading of a paper – please allow me to have an opinion based on my attendance at a conference.
PS It could be said the paper is a bit dated. 😉
After reading Jen & Luke’s exchange I now have to assume that the following advice to the Australian electorate is wrong: Perhaps Luke will edit it for me.
“Leading international scientists agree that human activity is disrupting the planet’s climate systems. Fossil fuels, used for energy and transport, are major contributors to the problem. Without significant action to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels we will cause catastrophic damage to Earth’s ecosystems, triggering social and economic upheaval.”
Close Cinders. But you have to read it more closely. They key is in the sentence “Leading international scientists” all respect to Jen and Luke, but I don’t think they qualify. 🙂
No smear – it’s what it says. If you’re editorialising on it it’s not too much to ask.
And his last conference slide says “could”.
It’s utterly dreadful that the modellers haven’t modified their codes already with this being revealed two weeks ago. How tardy is that.
Cinders – “disrupting” and “catastrophic” are your words.
You’re gonna pay Mr T 🙂
Thanks Jen, you made my day.
It seems that “Global Warming for Dummies” immediately found its target audience.
Blog people are a funny lot and so are the rest depending on internet chat groups. I say that as perhaps one of the most practiced “sceptics” checking round the traps. Regarding routines in thinking, deprogramming became a bit of a hobby as a youngster working with lots of veterans and refugees after ww2.
These days when I see the words, “foundation, institute, policy, public and research” I think “book peddlers” all of them, and associate it with my experience of world wide Edgar Casey or similar promotion based in the USA.
I recall a lesson from high school where a wise cannon told his class to stick up for “your own tradition and denomination” in preference to some outside money fleecing org with questionable links to the longer study of theology. Rejecting artwork copied for mass production in Asia is another line of personal insurance. Picking through the sheer quantity of imports makes it harder though.
The quality of our basic science has never been much of an issue up until now. The application of R & D in technology was for the most part very interesting and fairly uneventful in terms of bad experience. Even the introduction of BCF and its spread into general fire protection in preference to carbon tet or trychlorethane was a bit mundane.
CO2 extinguishers on the other hand were almost fun to use and maintain.
There is however a great gulf between the science and the practice. This was never more so than with all our burning. Over time I covered measurements for operation and research in most domestic and industrial forms of combustion. When we drive beyond our individual capacity to recover in every operation, certainly lifestyle and possibly life is at risk however “sustainability” too is a buzz word of this new age. Most of us have forgotten, how to turn a wheel, make a metal screw or a piece of cutlery and build a boat.
well I never, not only has Luke become a skeptic, but Gavin as well.
We really need to add a fifth point to William Briggs list of 4:
5. Jump the fence.
You’re in a good mood today Jen – and uncharacteristically in the blog trenches with the grunts – what’s the occasion?
Of course I’m a skeptic – isn’t everyone – but with much more taste and discrimination e.g. I have never touched a copy of E&E.
And to make it worse my mates have now disowned me for hanging around with you guys for too long. Developing “unhealthy peripheral knowledge” and “impertinent questions” I think the terms were.
But anyway – lah de dah – getting back to it – what are you going to do about strong water vapour feedback in Europe.
Many years ago, I was given the acronym Grunt (Government Reject Unfit for Normal Training) so I might be a bit slow here, Luke are you saying that human activity is not ‘disrupting’ the climate system, nor will it be catastrophic?
If these words are wrong then why is our Government and our media and ‘leading scientists’ (not Luke or Jen – Mr T) advocating for massive reductions in CO2 emissions and fosil fuel use. Perhaps we should be advocating against water use!
Climate has an internal variability driven by known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation, plus the odd volcano. External variability is due to solar factors with a low/very low level of scientific understanding by the IPCC. Not much left for anthropogenic factors.
We’re battling on somehow over here in Europe with ‘strong’ water vapour feedback. Expecting an Artcic blast of cold air for Easter.
“what are you going to do about strong water vapour feedback in Europe”. And where is all the wet stuff? Southern skies have been virtually cloudless for weeks
The ACT has just reached a record for March, 8 days straight above 30, “unseasonable” they said after our 7pm news tonight. My place was 32-33C again but as I forgot to reset the marks I can’t be sure of my max T after yesterday. BTW the same bulletin mentioned failing NH glaciers that locals depend on for their “fresh” water. Recall it was a dear old lady visiting us from Europe that set this cat among the pigeons in the first place.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=530&ArticleID=5760&l=en
http://abcsport.com.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2190938.htm
Victoria
“The Weather Bureau says daytime temperatures were up to 15 degrees higher than average and up to 21 degrees above average in the Western District”
abc.com.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2191888.htm
G’Day cinders: Been on holidays? Let’s go crunching again hey
Watch ABC 4 Corners tonight, “Winds of Change”
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/
So Paul’s response to science is now a cherry pick. Maybe Spencer’s 15 JMOs were just unlucky then if you want to try that logic.
Cinders – you ask what exactly I think.
I think anthropogenic influences have made an impact on global climate. Whether that impact is yet disruptive long-term is too early to say. But I believe the influence is there. And that is from a wide range of diverse global evidence.
What concerns me is not a 2-3 C temperature rise per se – moreover what effect there might be in extremes of temperature, droughts and storms.
There is a case to be made for anthropogenic influences at work in the recent Australian millenium drought so it is of some pith and moment to us.
Whether the future will see “catastrophic” warming I’m not sure. You have to weigh up all the evidence, think through the impacts, the geopolitical considerations, the cost of doing nothing versus adaptation versus mitigation.
So given you have to make a decision and not sit on the fence I think there is enough evidence to make significant investment in decarbonising our energy supply. Once started I think this can be quite profitable. Whether the global political will exists to mark a start and keep going remains to be tested.
So – in short – I believe there has been an anthropogenic influence at work on global climate and enough of a future risk for the issue to grow to be harmful to the well being of global societies and the natural environment.
Catastrophic – what does catastrophic mean. How much do you have to lose before harmful becomes catastrophic.
Of course I could be wrong – but in both directions. Worse than I expect or a fizzer.
Gavin, It amazes me the programs you watch. I am not much of a fan of Four Corners since their refusal to make an on air apology and correction to ‘Lords of the Forest’ or give their Eureka Award back after the ABC’s own Independent Complaints Review Panel found them in breach of thier own Editorial standards and codes of practice. Their failure to correct errors has led me to not value their credibility as ” Australia’s premier television current affairs program”
As the Garnaut review identified the program might include a bit of bullsh*t.
The main greenhouse gases emitted from agriculture in Australia are methane and nitrous oxide. In 2005, agriculture
accounted for:
60% of Australia’s methane emissions, with over 70% of these coming from livestock through enteric fermentation and manure management; and
85% of Australia’s nitrous oxide emissions, with major sources being release as a result of nitrogen fertiliser
application and nitrogen in animal excreta (AGO, 2007).
Then again 4 Corners might just have two bob each way, like Luke does when he critiques my very nice quote from The Greens web site.
I have just listened to a program which talks at length about melting icecaps. I have just heard a report that the glaciers are all melting enthusiastically.
Meanwhile, according to “Cryosphere Today”, the Poles now have comfortably more than their 20 year long term average ice levels, and the planet’s temperature at 1 km, according to the AMSU satellites, is about 0.65 degrees cooler than last year.
The sun is still blank of sunspots.
Someone is telling porkies.
The blogs above remind me of someone fiddling while Rome burns [cools].
Luke – I was just giving the weather forecast for Easter – it came from the Daily Express, which is now known for making weather predictions that rarely come true.
How much of the anthropogenic influence is due to CO2?
I think we have to accept that whatever the causes of climate change, there’s not much we can do about global CO2 emissions:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002801.html
Doug – you should also remember that the IPCC summary report is 12 months and maybe 18 months or longer if you add in cutouts for input.
Again I ask – where’s your cooling report to warn government?
May I interupt and introduce some basic physics?
The earth’s atomosphere is comprised of 3 physical phases – gas, liquid and particulate, thus air, water and aerosols.
Air is chemically comprised of nitrogen, oxygen, some hydrogen and minute amounts of minor gases including argon, carbon dioxide, methane to mention a few.
The argument is about the variation in Air’s chemical composition, not it’s overall physical state.
It is much like arguing that the chemical composition of an air bubble inclusion in ice affects the physical state of the ice itself, such being the effect that trace gases have.
The whole problem lies in the inability of most to comprehend the difference between chemical composition and physical state of some gas, here air.
It is air that is the only gas phase (moot re water vapour) in the atmosphere, and it behaves, as all gas mixtures do, as a unique phase. CO2, N2, O2 and etc do not behave independently of each other. We do not observe, if we could, N2 exhibiting a different Brownian Motion to that of CO2. We actually do not have the scientific skills nor instrumentation to measure that but that is precisely what global warmers are asserting via their pseudoscience.
It is AIR that is the gas whose physical state is important, not CO2 etc.
Pielke Sr’s favoured metric suggests 4 years of non-warming:
http://climatesci.org/2008/03/14/reality-check-on-this-years-cold-and-snowy-weather-implications-for-global-warming/
Policymakers should prepare for the possible futures of both warming and cooling – that would be a true precautionary principle.
“(6) I have conceded climate sensitivity if fertile ground for debate – so what’s your problem?”
Exactly, I have always argued the only debate is over the extent of warming. Patrick Michaels himself has agreed. Instead we see endless topics of nonsense that are pointless diversions from the real game. We know CO2 is greenhouse gas, that is beyond dispute, we know it’s well on it’s way to doubling, we know the glaciers rate of melting is increasing. The only question is, what is the nett effect going to be? No more David Archibald waffle, please, even climate audit has smacked him down, along with other perennial favourites here like “Falsification of CO2 as a greenhouse gas” and astrologers like Landscheidt.
Making up peoples thoughts and motivations is poor form, attacking them on the basis of those fictions even worse, and I would expect better.
I also note this fascination for a ten year period of time to measure warming. Is there some sort of scientific convention for using a decade, and then ignoring everything else that I, as a layman, haven’t heard about?
SJT
What does “(6) refer to. (I scrolled above to find it, and did not)
SJT
Probably because dividing by dozens, possibly leading to a new term, dozecals, was found impractible.
The assertion of the paper that the H2O-warmed troposphere can warm the earth is tendentious hyperbole.
1. The RSS and UAH MSU data indicate NO warming of the high tropsphere at low-latitudes, where 85% of OLR is available for capture, consistent with AGW theory or models.
2. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics there can be no net flow of heat from a cooler to a warmer body. This INCLUDES radiative transfers.
3. The heat gained by upper troposphere via the condensation of H20 is many orders of magnitude greater than that gained or lost by radiative transfers of all GHGs in any direction at the temperatures in situ.
4. The studies cited by Luke implying that a the evidence of “observed moistening is accurately captured” confirming climate models or that warming in Europe “must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback” amount to trivial impertinences and begged questions.
Therefore the AGW model is in disarray; it is not consistent with orthodox physics or earth science nor is it consistent with empirical results.
The AGW modelers are just goofin’ at the physics. That “CO2 forcing has been dominant over the last 30 years” is an unabashed prevarication analogous to “its fake but true”.
“well I never, not only has Luke become a skeptic, but Gavin as well.
We really need to add a fifth point to William Briggs list of 4:
5. Jump the fence.”
Jennifer, all you are doing is showing how little you understand what has been said on this topic all along. Briggs has invented a fiction for what the scientists are saying, you have gone along with it. Please, just listen and understand.
In making sense of “natural variability”, that dog in all climate science I maintain it’s entirely “human” to seek simplicity in theories, models, records and so on but chaotic events such as we have dragged down by the huge delays in surface fluids mixing homogeneously will always hide trends in the short term. Likewise the “rhythm of nature” will be obscured from the casual glance.
It’s also hard to explain some of the cut through methods I employ based on years of industrial experience where you have to trust something and someone as you do the rounds. In commissioning plants and verifying measurements in each new project we could be lucky to have a week to think through it all.
Later on while working in the PS, I regularly had breakfast with the local weather man and a research mathematician from CSIRO. Serious discussion about the next weather bulletin was often the order of the day. Watching each other stir the coffee could be the start of the next prediction model.
“There is no reason to expect that predictions of overall trends in average temperature, or even predictions of increasing frequency of droughts, should be linked in any way with predictions of local weather at specific times”
http://www.zerocarbonnetwork.cc/news/hyper-scepticism—politics-science–the-tamar-valley-61_9.html
The Zero Carbon Network page also has some “fine” feeds on warming etc.
What is a valid concept? I doubt can we fully understand each other when it comes to the point. I met the hometown girl at the weekend who at the time was married to another member of that breakfast group. IMO it’s the non academic input that keeps our society functioning.
Routines and expectations must change with circumstances as we find them. Also troubleshooting complex systems sometimes requires a range of practical support (grass roots) as harmony in competition is unlikely at the top.
“2. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics there can be no net flow of heat from a cooler to a warmer body. This INCLUDES radiative transfers.”
How many times will this stupid argument come up? *NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THIS*
The claim is that the net flow of heat has been *SLOWED DOWN*, that’s all. By slowing down the transfer of heat, you have effectively raised the temperature of the earth. It’s like a greenhouse. That doesn’t stop heat flowing, but it slows down the transfer of heat, raising the temperature inside the greenhouse.
Can we get some sanity happening here?
Jen,
I was in the New York audience also while Roy Spencer’s gave his presentation. His work is as important as you say it is, if not more so. I am trying to get a hold of his slides. Please email them to me if you have them.
“Doug – you should also remember that the IPCC summary report is 12 months and maybe 18 months or longer if you add in cutouts for input.
Again I ask – where’s your cooling report to warn government?”
There has just been a major conference in New York where a group of scientists are [desperately?] trying to inject some balance into the AGW debate.
I don’t recall hearing of many government representatives at the conference, but the papers are all available.
A conference of diverse views is hardly a distilled report with policy recommendations on a “cooling emergency”. If there is a “cooling emergency” we should have a serious report on the issue. Being told to attend the library doesn’t normally cause any policy action.
The claim is that the net flow of heat has been *SLOWED DOWN*, that’s all. By slowing down the transfer of heat, you have effectively raised the temperature of the earth. It’s like a greenhouse.
Yes, and what is the evidence, the proof that heat transfer to space has slowed? As your GCM models it, of course. The temperatures in the tropical troposphere near tropopause reach 1.2 times that near the surface owing to water vapor feedback. That is the AGW mantra.
It’s not happening folks, and it’s because greenhouses warm because thermal conduction with the surrounding atmosphere is prevented.
That portion owing to GHGs is easily demonstrated by experiment to be unmeasurable, i.e., smaller than the experimental error.
Gary,
Try looking for the information. I didn’t try very hard and found one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5727/1431
“This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.”
That was in 2005.
Gary, maybe you could use this info to work it out yourself as well:
http://science.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/
Maybe O/T?
I think not.
Go and visit Tim Blair’s
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/olden_warming/
I know, I know! Most of the time he is taking the piss, but if you follow the links in his blog piece, you will find, all this kind of discussion has taken place before, much to the same outcome!
The believers latch onto another disaster scenario, and the sensible ones going on with their lives.
Interesting that revisiting the ol’ global cooling story is back in vogue.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/02/study_debunks_global_cooling_c.php
As for mockery – you have to laugh:
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-1.html
and
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-2.html
Luke…brilliant but subtle. That should really STF up those denialist wankers
Luke…brilliant but subtle. That should really STF up those denialist wankers
“The believers latch onto another disaster scenario, and the sensible ones going on with their lives.”
That’s why we don’t just go around ‘believing’, it’s a matter of evidence derived from science.
As they dance about on the decks of Good Old HMS Climaticuscarious.
Mr. T.: Thank you for the links, I will certainly review these materials but cannot in time to contribute further to this thread. I hope your Dr. Hansen shows his work, e.g., derivations from first principles or I will be left to my own.
Luke!
Having looked at the sites, you recommend as a rebuttal, I have to quote a famous tennis player, “You cannot be serious!” that is just rubbish, not even funny rubbish.
michaelf!
(unless you were sarcastic, hard to tell), if you call that crap “Brilliant, and subtle” I feel sorry for your friends.
Luke!
Having looked at the sites, you recommend as a rebuttal, I have to quote a famous tennis player, “You cannot be serious!” that is just rubbish, not even funny rubbish.
michaelf!
(unless you were sarcastic, hard to tell), if you call that crap “Brilliant, and subtle” I feel sorry for your friends.
Sorry for the double post, I don’t know what happened, but it’s worth saying twice anyway!
Margita: No apologies, TB’s just another right wing peddler
ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR BIAS…… EH GAVIN
!!
toby: I have paddles splashing on both sides of this boat
back to topic thread:
This is about a simply theory which has been articulated, incorporated into models and has now been proven wrong.
To recap, this time from a new article by Roy Spencer:
“By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.”
Read more here: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=82
sorry the above link is missing an ‘8’ from the end, it should be:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
Posted on Mar. 20, 2008
By Roy W. Spencer
The Sloppy Science of Global Warming
Spencer et al “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations”
Found the feedback to be – 6.1W/K.
IPPC claims ~3K /2xCO2
BB sensitivity (atmosphere is close to black body if not exactly) found by differentiating Stefan-Boltzmann
dQ/dT = [sigma]T^3/4 = 5.67E-8*288^3/4 = .339 W/K
ie 1.01 W/2xCO2 which is the positive feedback (IPCC claims 3.7 W/m^2/2xCO2 which is not really a coherent result)
so net feedback will be ~ 5.1 W/K which is still negative though reduced from the original and a little warming may result but not a lot. Then of course the human impact is a fraction of that.
Jennifer: I reckon the obvious global posting on March 20 of this latest Spencer article failed to lock in the mainstream media and that is quite at odds with the stream of other climate papers available recently.