What is Earth's 'correct' temperature?

[IanC]

The controversy between Willson and Lean is over a decade old. And all the present graphs that I trust, those of NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, show a decline, very small, but a decline none the less, for the last 50 years. Thus far, no one has been able to show me why a decline in the TSI should result in further warming.

In fact, 2008 should have been a very cold year. One that was in the bottom 10 for warmth, not in the top ten. A very strong solar minimum with virtually no sunspots, a strong La Nina. But, depending on the record keepers, it ranked as either the tenth or eight warmest on record. And the next year, 2009, tied for second warmest. This is not indictutive of the TSI being the cause of the present warming. The primary change that we have seen is the additional GHGs that we have added to the atmosphere. And the physics of the additional GHGs state that we should be seeing that warming.

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

This guy says the sun is getting brighter, using the same methods as your guys. Your graphs of sunspots also show a gradual increase. The latest minimum is unusual and we don't know the reasons for it. We have had some realtime data since the telescope. Better data since spacecraft and satellites. Inferred data from ice cores and other similar methods. But we don't know all the ins and outs of our sun's mechanics, like why the sunspot cycle is variable. What other cycles are there and what is their timeframes? You keep acting as if we know it all but we are only taking first steps and nothing is close to being 'settled science'.

Yes, there is debate about whether the sun is brightening, or dimming. But the amount is a very small fraction of one percent in either case. As for the physics of the mechanisms within the sun, you are correct. We have little real understanding of it. Another satellite for the study of the sun, one that can answer a few questions, and probably provoke far more questions than those answered at this point, will be launch shortly.

Why NASA Keeps a Close Eye on the Sun's Irradiance

As a result, questions remain about how the sun's irradiance has changed. Richard Willson, principal investigator for NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), reported in a 2003 paper that the overall brightness of the sun was increasing by 0.05 percent per decade.

Subsequent assessments of the same data have come to a different conclusion. Other groups of scientists have shown that the apparent upward trend is actually an artifact of the radiometers and how they degrade in orbit. Complicating the issue further, an instrument aboard NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) measured irradiance levels during a solar minimum in 2008 that were actually lower than the previous solar minimum.

Which measurements are right? Has the sun experienced subtle brightening or dimming during the last few solar cycles? Such questions remain controversial, but the radiometer aboard Glory, called the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), is ready to provide answers. The Glory TIM will be more accurate and stable than previous instruments because of unique optical and electrical advances. And each of its components has undergone a rigorous regime of calibrations at a newly-built facility at the University of Colorado.

By the way, thank you for the interesting article.

Think about this for a moment. The absorption spectra of the GHGs don't care what the TSI is, they will take in the same percentage whether it is up or down. But if you increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, then the GHGs will retain a higher percentage of the outgoing heat. A higher TSI, higher amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere, and you have a lot more heat retained.

Damn phone keeps logging out and I lose my comment.

Mostly visible light comes in, heats the earth, which then gives off black body radiation of mostly infrared. CO2 then absorbs its favourite wavelengths only one of which is not swamped by water vapour. That CO2 then gives off its own black body radiation, some or most of which is not captured by other co2, but escapes or is captured by a different ghg. I can see that some heat is held by co2 and some is sent back to earth but I don't see this as an efficient bottleneck in radiation escaping, especially compared to water both as vapor and oceans. Please enlighten me if I am confused.

 

[JBeukema]

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

It has been tested and found to be a fact. Look at the number of precipitation events. Where do you thing the extra water is coming from?

Can you link to this data, please?

 

[Old Rocks]

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

It has been tested and found to be a fact. Look at the number of precipitation events. Where do you thing the extra water is coming from?

Can you link to this data, please?

Climate Change: When It Rains It Really Pours

The report, "Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes," previewed in Science Express this Thursday, August 7, and published in an upcoming issue of Science, found that both observations and models indicated an increase in heavy rainstorms in response to a warmer climate. However, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes was found to be substantially larger in the observations than what is predicted by current models.

 

[Old Rocks]

Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes -- Allan and Soden 321 (5895): 1481 -- Science

Originally published in Science Express on 7 August 2008
Science 12 September 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5895, pp. 1481 - 1484
DOI: 10.1126/science.1160787
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes
Richard P. Allan1* and Brian J. Soden2

Climate models suggest that extreme precipitation events will become more common in an anthropogenically warmed climate. However, observational limitations have hindered a direct evaluation of model-projected changes in extreme precipitation. We used satellite observations and model simulations to examine the response of tropical precipitation events to naturally driven changes in surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content. These observations reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods and decreasing during cold periods. Furthermore, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes is found to be larger than that predicted by models, implying that projections of future changes in rainfall extremes in response to anthropogenic global warming may be underestimated.

1 Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AL, UK.
2 Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, FL 33149, USA.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

This guy says the sun is getting brighter, using the same methods as your guys. Your graphs of sunspots also show a gradual increase. The latest minimum is unusual and we don't know the reasons for it. We have had some realtime data since the telescope. Better data since spacecraft and satellites. Inferred data from ice cores and other similar methods. But we don't know all the ins and outs of our sun's mechanics, like why the sunspot cycle is variable. What other cycles are there and what is their timeframes? You keep acting as if we know it all but we are only taking first steps and nothing is close to being 'settled science'.

Yes, there is debate about whether the sun is brightening, or dimming. But the amount is a very small fraction of one percent in either case. As for the physics of the mechanisms within the sun, you are correct. We have little real understanding of it. Another satellite for the study of the sun, one that can answer a few questions, and probably provoke far more questions than those answered at this point, will be launch shortly.

Why NASA Keeps a Close Eye on the Sun's Irradiance

As a result, questions remain about how the sun's irradiance has changed. Richard Willson, principal investigator for NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), reported in a 2003 paper that the overall brightness of the sun was increasing by 0.05 percent per decade.

Subsequent assessments of the same data have come to a different conclusion. Other groups of scientists have shown that the apparent upward trend is actually an artifact of the radiometers and how they degrade in orbit. Complicating the issue further, an instrument aboard NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) measured irradiance levels during a solar minimum in 2008 that were actually lower than the previous solar minimum.

Which measurements are right? Has the sun experienced subtle brightening or dimming during the last few solar cycles? Such questions remain controversial, but the radiometer aboard Glory, called the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), is ready to provide answers. The Glory TIM will be more accurate and stable than previous instruments because of unique optical and electrical advances. And each of its components has undergone a rigorous regime of calibrations at a newly-built facility at the University of Colorado.

By the way, thank you for the interesting article.

Think about this for a moment. The absorption spectra of the GHGs don't care what the TSI is, they will take in the same percentage whether it is up or down. But if you increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, then the GHGs will retain a higher percentage of the outgoing heat. A higher TSI, higher amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere, and you have a lot more heat retained.

Damn phone keeps logging out and I lose my comment.

Mostly visible light comes in, heats the earth, which then gives off black body radiation of mostly infrared. CO2 then absorbs its favourite wavelengths only one of which is not swamped by water vapour. That CO2 then gives off its own black body radiation, some or most of which is not captured by other co2, but escapes or is captured by a different ghg. I can see that some heat is held by co2 and some is sent back to earth but I don't see this as an efficient bottleneck in radiation escaping, especially compared to water both as vapor and oceans. Please enlighten me if I am confused.

It is not a very efficient bottleneck. Doesn't have to be. Just enough to warm the atmosphere a bit to take up more water vapor, which is a very efficient bottleneck.

This is just the abstract, the whole article is available at the site.


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.6379&rep=rep1&type=pdf
To understand the role of water vapor feedback in unperturbed surface temperature variability, a version of
the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled ocean–atmosphere model is integrated for 1000 yr in two
configurations, one with water vapor feedback and one without. For all spatial scales, the model with water
vapor feedback has more low-frequency (timescale $ 2 yr) surface temperature variability than the one without.
Thus water vapor feedback is positive in the context of the model’s unperturbed variability. In addition, water
vapor feedback is more effective the longer the timescale of the surface temperature anomaly and the larger its
spatial scale.
To understand the role of water vapor feedback in global warming, two 500-yr integrations were also performed
in which CO2 was doubled in both model configurations. The final surface global warming in the model with
water vapor feedback is 3.388C, while in the one without it is only 1.058C. However, the model’s water vapor
feedback has a larger impact on surface warming in response to a doubling of CO2 than it does on internally
generated, low-frequency, global-mean surface temperature anomalies. Water vapor feedback’s strength therefore
depends on the type of temperature anomaly it affects. The authors found that the degree to which a surface
temperature anomaly penetrates into the troposphere is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of its
associated water vapor feedback. The more the anomaly penetrates, the stronger the feedback. It is also shown
that the apparent impact of water vapor feedback is altered by other feedback mechanisms, such as albedo and
cloud feedback. The sensitivity of the results to this fact is examined.
Finally, the authors compare the local and global-mean surface temperature time series from both unperturbed
variability experiments to the observed record. The experiment without water vapor feedback does not have
enough global-scale variability to reproduce the magnitude of the variability in the observed global-mean record,
whether or not one removes the warming trend observed over the past century. In contrast, the amount of
variability in the experiment with water vapor feedback is comparable to that of the global-mean record, provided
the observed warming trend is removed. Thus, the authors are unable to simulate the observed levels of variability
without water vapor feedback.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is a an old Italian saying that says - "When you wash the head of a jackass, you waste both time and soap".

I don't argue with Evangelical Environazis like Old Rocks, they are jackasses.

You don't argue because you have no means of argueing. No evidence is on your side, just idiotic mindless Conservative talking points. You know full well that were to debate this problem on it's scientific basis you would get your pantyass butt kicked.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it lacking accuracy. Sorry Old Rocks.

I don't debate the "science" (sic) because the garbage you cut and paste is not science. It is political propaganda. The jig is up Old Rocks, everyone here knows that you're an hysterical Evangelical Environmentalist and that Globull Warming is your religion.

At least the religious fanatics admit their "science" is based upon faith, you people just lie, lie and lie some more.

I see. Scientific articles from peer reviewed scientific journals are not science.

Zander, you are truly a brainless ass.

 

[JBeukema]

OR, this is the first hint of real science I've detected from you.

You never addressed the matter of none of the models producing the magical 14-degrees without being tweaked to render the desired result. You've Not yet addressed the studies cited which refute your assertions regarding the time C0^2 remains in the atmosphere. In another thread, it was shown that the perceived increase in temperature is within the the standard deviation/variation and that the few land-based measurement centers are all located in heat islands which have become ever-more intense as more asphalt is added around them.

They can't account for all the C0^2 we're known to be producing, according to one source, which indicates that nature has at least some ability to counteract our acts (makes sense in a non-linear system, for one factor to be drowned out in the grand scheme of things unless it's truly massive) and you never addressed the matter that even the CO^2 currently in the atmosphere doen'ts have the maximum effect it could because there's not enough radiation for it to absorb as is (see the posts relating to 'compeetion' with water vapour and other GHGs). You've not shown that the perciegved increase in global temperature is truly outside the norm, nor have you addressed the matter of C0^2 lagging behind global warming (perhaps in large part due to warming triggering the release of C0^2 form the oceans), which seems to indicate that what you assert is that cause it or has long been the effect. Nor have you answered why, if an increase C0^2 levels leads to warming and warming seemed to lead to higher C0^2 levels in the past, this didn't lead to a runaway cycle- or why we should expect it to do so now if it didn't in the past.

The AGW alarmists' methodology seems highly suspect, and one bit of information that happens to fit into your conjecture (your mention of increased precipitation during warmer periods) doesn't counter-weigh all the open questions and and apparent holes in your conjecture. With such glaring issues with your methodology, how can you expect your 'science' to be respected or treated as real science?

Junk methodology = junk science.

I started looking for the available evidence because I'm a skeptic by nature. All the evidence I see- including your failures in this very thread- point to AGW alarmism belonging in the ash heap beside phrenology. Do you honestly not see the problems with your conjecture, the methodology employed, and the conclusions being drawn seemingly from out of the very air itself and based on nothing but myth and the personal ideologies of those involved?

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 residence time is simply how long it will take to remove an increase in atmospheric CO2, not how long any one molecule remains in the atmosphere. There is a constant flux between the atmosphere and the ocean. Here is a better explanation of that.

Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human, Pacific

Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle
The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure (pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans. For example, when the atmospheric pCO 2 is higher than the surface ocean, CO 2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water.

The oceans are able to hold much more carbon than the atmosphere because most of the CO 2 that diffuses into the oceans reacts with the water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products, bicarbonate and carbonate ions . The conversion of CO 2 gas into nongaseous forms such as carbonic acid and bicarbonate and carbonate ions effectively reduces the CO 2 gas pressure in the water, thereby allowing more diffusion from the atmosphere.

The oceans are mixed much more slowly than the atmosphere, so there are large horizontal and vertical changes in CO 2 concentration. In general, tropical waters release CO 2 to the atmosphere, whereas high-latitude oceans take up CO 2 from the atmosphere. CO 2 is also about 10 percent higher in the deep ocean than at the surface. The two basic mechanisms that control the distribution of carbon in the oceans are referred to as the solubility pump and the biological pump.



Read more: Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human, Pacific Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human, Pacific

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW alarmist. Well, that reminds me of the discussion a fellow was having with one of the Balkan Kings.

This fellow noted that the King was quite paranoid. To which the King replied, "But the real question is, am I paranoid enough?".

The melt of the ice in the glaciers and ice caps is far ahead of the predictions. Precipitation events exceed the models. We are already seeing major impacts on agriculture. The permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates are outgassing well ahead of the predicted time.

Now, let's just ignore all of that. Surely cannot affect us, can it?

 

[konradv]

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

This guy says the sun is getting brighter, using the same methods as your guys. Your graphs of sunspots also show a gradual increase. The latest minimum is unusual and we don't know the reasons for it. We have had some realtime data since the telescope. Better data since spacecraft and satellites. Inferred data from ice cores and other similar methods. But we don't know all the ins and outs of our sun's mechanics, like why the sunspot cycle is variable. What other cycles are there and what is their timeframes? You keep acting as if we know it all but we are only taking first steps and nothing is close to being 'settled science'.

Yes, there is debate about whether the sun is brightening, or dimming. But the amount is a very small fraction of one percent in either case. As for the physics of the mechanisms within the sun, you are correct. We have little real understanding of it. Another satellite for the study of the sun, one that can answer a few questions, and probably provoke far more questions than those answered at this point, will be launch shortly.

Why NASA Keeps a Close Eye on the Sun's Irradiance

As a result, questions remain about how the sun's irradiance has changed. Richard Willson, principal investigator for NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), reported in a 2003 paper that the overall brightness of the sun was increasing by 0.05 percent per decade.

Subsequent assessments of the same data have come to a different conclusion. Other groups of scientists have shown that the apparent upward trend is actually an artifact of the radiometers and how they degrade in orbit. Complicating the issue further, an instrument aboard NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) measured irradiance levels during a solar minimum in 2008 that were actually lower than the previous solar minimum.

Which measurements are right? Has the sun experienced subtle brightening or dimming during the last few solar cycles? Such questions remain controversial, but the radiometer aboard Glory, called the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), is ready to provide answers. The Glory TIM will be more accurate and stable than previous instruments because of unique optical and electrical advances. And each of its components has undergone a rigorous regime of calibrations at a newly-built facility at the University of Colorado.

By the way, thank you for the interesting article.

Think about this for a moment. The absorption spectra of the GHGs don't care what the TSI is, they will take in the same percentage whether it is up or down. But if you increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, then the GHGs will retain a higher percentage of the outgoing heat. A higher TSI, higher amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere, and you have a lot more heat retained.

Damn phone keeps logging out and I lose my comment.

Mostly visible light comes in, heats the earth, which then gives off black body radiation of mostly infrared. CO2 then absorbs its favourite wavelengths only one of which is not swamped by water vapour. That CO2 then gives off its own black body radiation, some or most of which is not captured by other co2, but escapes or is captured by a different ghg. I can see that some heat is held by co2 and some is sent back to earth but I don't see this as an efficient bottleneck in radiation escaping, especially compared to water both as vapor and oceans. Please enlighten me if I am confused.

It's not just the energy absorbed by CO2, but also the amplification that the stored energy can generate. A small rise in CO2, leading to a small rise in temperature, would lead to a rise in the what many consider the more important GHG, water vapor. Like in a stereo where a small change in voltage, gives a large spike in sound.

 

[JBeukema]

You never addressed the matter of none of the models producing the magical 14-degrees without being tweaked to render the desired result. You've Not yet addressed the studies cited which refute your assertions regarding the time C0^2 remains in the atmosphere. In another thread, it was shown that the perceived increase in temperature is within the the standard deviation/variation and that the few land-based measurement centers are all located in heat islands which have become ever-more intense as more asphalt is added around them.

They can't account for all the C0^2 we're known to be producing, according to one source, which indicates that nature has at least some ability to counteract our acts (makes sense in a non-linear system, for one factor to be drowned out in the grand scheme of things unless it's truly massive) and you never addressed the matter that even the CO^2 currently in the atmosphere doen'ts have the maximum effect it could because there's not enough radiation for it to absorb as is (see the posts relating to 'compeetion' with water vapour and other GHGs). You've not shown that the perciegved increase in global temperature is truly outside the norm, nor have you addressed the matter of C0^2 lagging behind global warming (perhaps in large part due to warming triggering the release of C0^2 form the oceans), which seems to indicate that what you assert is that cause it or has long been the effect. Nor have you answered why, if an increase C0^2 levels leads to warming and warming seemed to lead to higher C0^2 levels in the past, this didn't lead to a runaway cycle- or why we should expect it to do so now if it didn't in the past.

The AGW alarmists' methodology seems highly suspect, and one bit of information that happens to fit into your conjecture (your mention of increased precipitation during warmer periods) doesn't counter-weigh all the open questions and and apparent holes in your conjecture. With such glaring issues with your methodology, how can you expect your 'science' to be respected or treated as real science?
?

You still never addressed any of that... why?


Junk methodology = junk science

 

[IanC]

You never addressed the matter of none of the models producing the magical 14-degrees without being tweaked to render the desired result. You've Not yet addressed the studies cited which refute your assertions regarding the time C0^2 remains in the atmosphere. In another thread, it was shown that the perceived increase in temperature is within the the standard deviation/variation and that the few land-based measurement centers are all located in heat islands which have become ever-more intense as more asphalt is added around them.

They can't account for all the C0^2 we're known to be producing, according to one source, which indicates that nature has at least some ability to counteract our acts (makes sense in a non-linear system, for one factor to be drowned out in the grand scheme of things unless it's truly massive) and you never addressed the matter that even the CO^2 currently in the atmosphere doen'ts have the maximum effect it could because there's not enough radiation for it to absorb as is (see the posts relating to 'compeetion' with water vapour and other GHGs). You've not shown that the perciegved increase in global temperature is truly outside the norm, nor have you addressed the matter of C0^2 lagging behind global warming (perhaps in large part due to warming triggering the release of C0^2 form the oceans), which seems to indicate that what you assert is that cause it or has long been the effect. Nor have you answered why, if an increase C0^2 levels leads to warming and warming seemed to lead to higher C0^2 levels in the past, this didn't lead to a runaway cycle- or why we should expect it to do so now if it didn't in the past.

The AGW alarmists' methodology seems highly suspect, and one bit of information that happens to fit into your conjecture (your mention of increased precipitation during warmer periods) doesn't counter-weigh all the open questions and and apparent holes in your conjecture. With such glaring issues with your methodology, how can you expect your 'science' to be respected or treated as real science?
?

You still never addressed any of that... why?


Junk methodology = junk science

It is a shame that the AGW scientists allowed their obviously informed and important contributions to our body of knowledge to be used as a latter day version of 'chicken little'.

 

[ekiosity]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

I can't tell if you're serious, but something like $50 billion a year in government funding for research. If global warming doesn't exist, I'm pretty sure government doesn't fund it.

 

[code1211]

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

It has been tested and found to be a fact. Look at the number of precipitation events. Where do you thing the extra water is coming from?

Precipitatiion events? Today, a drop of rain can't fall without it being recorded by Doppler Radar for the local weather girl. This is a pretty recent phenom. Extra water? Water is all around us as vapor, liquid and ice.

If it's vapor and in the air and it touches something cooler than the air, like my windsheild in the morning or my Iced Tea glass in the afternoon, it turns liquid. Is this a precipitation event?

Where is the shoreline in Miami or New York compared to where it was in 1930? I know that both cities will be completely submerged 80 years from now because that's what you tell me, but why haven't they even gotten wet feet in those places due the sea rise of the last 80 years?

Before we determine where the extra water is coming from, and I know this is exactly opposite from most AGW Theory, we should determine if there is extra water.

Solving problems that don't exist is easy. Showing that the problems exist is a tad more tricky.

 

[code1211]

Now Code, you are really playing dumb on this. You know full well that water vapor is a feedback from the heat retained in the atmosphere. Since water remains in the atmosphere less than ten days, there has to be a mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heat to evaporate more water. That mechanism is CO2.

Increase the amount of CO2, and the atmosphere will hold more water. Which will fall out as rain and cool the atmosphere, untill a new, warmer equalibrium is established. Increase the CO2 some more, and an even warmer equalibrium will be established.

Following your train of logic, why has the level of Water Vapor remain stable in the face of rising CO2?

You made the claim that it has. Show your reasoning and proof of that claim. Then explain the increase in the number of precipitation events worldwide.

Water evaporates and condenses due to pretty specific temperature relationships.

The Global Climate has remained within a 2 degree variation for 8000 years.

We are smack dab in the middle of that variation right now.

Unless the physical properties of water have changed, the level of water vapor is very stable.

 

[code1211]

It has been tested and found to be a fact. Look at the number of precipitation events. Where do you thing the extra water is coming from?

Can you link to this data, please?

Climate Change: When It Rains It Really Pours

The report, "Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes," previewed in Science Express this Thursday, August 7, and published in an upcoming issue of Science, found that both observations and models indicated an increase in heavy rainstorms in response to a warmer climate. However, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes was found to be substantially larger in the observations than what is predicted by current models.

So the study concluded that it rains more during the rainy season in the tropics than it does at other times of the year? Fascinating!

 

[code1211]

In terms of heat retention, any incremental increase in temperature that results from CO2 will require a doubling of the CO2 from the previous base line. The climate requires huge CO2 increases for equal incremental warming. That is how the science of this is stated.

Source?

I'm sorry, I don't have one to cite. I cam across this in one of my my searches for something else in the past. If i can find it again, I'll post it.

 

[code1211]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

I can't tell if you're serious, but something like $50 billion a year in government funding for research. If global warming doesn't exist, I'm pretty sure government doesn't fund it.

This an incestuous little cicle jerk going on here. The government funds studies to prove there is a problem that can be solved by raising taxes and exerting control over money making enterprises and private individuals.

The studies are funded to get more funds to fund more studies and so on.

 

[westwall]

Can you link to this data, please?

Climate Change: When It Rains It Really Pours

The report, "Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes," previewed in Science Express this Thursday, August 7, and published in an upcoming issue of Science, found that both observations and models indicated an increase in heavy rainstorms in response to a warmer climate. However, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes was found to be substantially larger in the observations than what is predicted by current models.

So the study concluded that it rains more during the rainy season in the tropics than it does at other times of the year? Fascinating!

Yes, they are masters at stating the obvious aren't they.

 

[saveliberty]

Climate Change: When It Rains It Really Pours

The report, "Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes," previewed in Science Express this Thursday, August 7, and published in an upcoming issue of Science, found that both observations and models indicated an increase in heavy rainstorms in response to a warmer climate. However, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes was found to be substantially larger in the observations than what is predicted by current models.

So the study concluded that it rains more during the rainy season in the tropics than it does at other times of the year? Fascinating!

Yes, they are masters at stating the obvious aren't they.

I don't know about masters, but those Phds raked in some serious grant money.