JoNova Cartoon

[IanC]

“Dunno”, says the Minister of Dams, “We blocked off part of that pipe, but the dam is hardly getting any fuller?”


from part 11 New Science 11: An Alternative Modeling Strategy « JoNova


the cartoon is funny, and it is shorthand to describe what is happening in our climate. any disruption of one route that energy takes to escape to space is simply redirected to other routes. (obviously with some change in temp otherwise it would have already happened)

hahahaha, the comments actually go on to critique the cartoon! rather than discuss the 11th article in the series they would rather complain about a cartoon. perhaps the biggest impediment to understanding radiation is that, unlike the matter that we are used to dealing with, radiation does not interact with other radiation. no duelling water hoses fighting to a standstill. no constraint of flux due to aperture size.


the article itself presents the idea (again) that restricting radiation loss by increased CO2 is not the same as adding more solar insulation, which is how computer models deal with it. read it there, discuss it here if you want.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it is a very silly cartoon. Ignores the fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere also increases the amount of water vapor.

 

[jc456]

No, it is a very silly cartoon. Ignores the fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere also increases the amount of water vapor.

are you saying that when there is a cloud overhead, there is more CO2 present there? So when it is partly cloudy, it is partly CO2y?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, it is a very silly cartoon. Ignores the fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere also increases the amount of water vapor.

Prove it..

The empirical evidence says your full of shit there old fraud..

Water Vapor : Global Maps

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my. simple matter of physics. The warmer the atmosphere and water, the more evaporation of water. And CO2 is a GHG and warms the atmosphere.

 

[flacaltenn]

My, my. simple matter of physics. The warmer the atmosphere and water, the more evaporation of water. And CO2 is a GHG and warms the atmosphere.

Clouds maybe Ole-Rocks, but not necessarily water vapor. More CONVECTION which enhances cloud formation FROM existing water vapor -- but no real evidence that water vapor has increased due to the trivial amount of warming and the relatively slow rate of GW. If you GOOSED the temperature rapidly -- you'd forced evaporation and a temporary new level of water vapor. But it's so transient -- that a slow almost imperceptable change in surface temp. intuitively aint the ticket..

 

[IanC]

No, it is a very silly cartoon. Ignores the fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere also increases the amount of water vapor.

is it worth it to respond to Old Rocks? I have the distinct impression I have already discussed this topic with him before.

first, CO2 has no direct affect on water vapour at all. is Old Rocks suggesting that CO2 warms the atmosphere which in turn warms the surface which in turn evaporates more water? perhaps. is it true? doubtful.

NASA have just released their latest NVAP-M survey of global water content derived from satellite data and radio-sondes over the period from 1988 to 2009. This new data is explicitly intended for climate studies . So lets take a look at the comparison between actual NVAP-M atmospheric H2O levels and those of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. I have extracted all the daily measurement NVAP-M data and then calculated the global average. Figure 1 shows the running 30 day average of all the daily data recorde between 1988 and 2009 inclusive. The 365 day (yearly) running average is also shown. Plotted on the right hand scale are the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data in red over the same period.

oh dear! is this another coincidental correlation in the 90's that fails miserably since then? NVAP-M was released in 2012, to little fanfare, and has since then been ignored because it doesnt support the 'consensus'.

it is very hard to cobble together data that doesnt show a decrease in atmospheric water vapour. the longer term data from the 50's onward also shows a decrease but the information is somewhat uncertain. better to stick with good data for 20 years but because the range is so short the results are not significant and no warmist scientists have to respond..........yet.

 

[mamooth]

is it worth it to respond to Old Rocks? I have the distinct impression I have already discussed this topic with him before.

What's the problem? Just yell some insults to cover your retreat. Go on, call me "poo flinging monkey" now. You know you want to.

oh dear! is this another coincidental correlation in the 90's that fails miserably since then? NVAP-M was released in 2012, to little fanfare, and has since then been ignored because it doesnt support the 'consensus'.

That's the usual conspiracy nonsense. If you actually look at the NVAP-M graph, it shows an upward trend, then leveling out during the dryer La Nina phases. You know, like expected. It's also Ian's usual cherrypicking fallacy to ignore all the other data that contradicts his conspiracy theories.

Billy does a similar thing. He tosses out some mystery graphs from a denier blog, then gives a link to NASA, but the link has nothing to do with the graphs. Looks like Billy was trying to pull a fast one on us, trying to imply his graphs came straight from NASA. Busted.

The cartoon is dumb, in that it supports AGW theory. If one pipe is blocked, water level -- that is, temperature in the analogy -- has to increase, in order to force more water through the other pipes. The other commenters pointed that out, and Ian hand waved away the criticism and implied those commenters were stupid for pointing out such a colossal logical blunder.

What do the scientists say? That water vapor is increasing as temperature rises. Here's one example.

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 - 2008,
Dessler et al (2008)

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
---
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response
---

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
Santer et al (2007)

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
---
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988
---

I can keep posting such papers, but what's the point? The conspiracy theorists will always respond by saying all the data is faked. There's no point in arguing with that kind of "logic". You just point out the conspiracy theorists aren't rational, and walk away.

 

[Billy_Bob]

is it worth it to respond to Old Rocks? I have the distinct impression I have already discussed this topic with him before.

What's the problem? Just yell some insults to cover your retreat. Go on, call me "poo flinging monkey" now. You know you want to.

oh dear! is this another coincidental correlation in the 90's that fails miserably since then? NVAP-M was released in 2012, to little fanfare, and has since then been ignored because it doesnt support the 'consensus'.

That's the usual conspiracy nonsense. If you actually look at the NVAP-M graph, it shows an upward trend, then leveling out during the dryer La Nina phases. You know, like expected. It's also Ian's usual cherrypicking fallacy to ignore all the other data that contradicts his conspiracy theories.

Billy does a similar thing. He tosses out some mystery graphs from a denier blog, then gives a link to NASA, but the link has nothing to do with the graphs. Looks like Billy was trying to pull a fast one on us, trying to imply his graphs came straight from NASA. Busted.

The cartoon is dumb, in that it supports AGW theory. If one pipe is blocked, water level -- that is, temperature in the analogy -- has to increase, in order to force more water through the other pipes. The other commenters pointed that out, and Ian hand waved away the criticism and implied those commenters were stupid for pointing out such a colossal logical blunder.

What do the scientists say? That water vapor is increasing as temperature rises. Here's one example.

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 - 2008,
Dessler et al (2008)

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
---
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response
---

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
Santer et al (2007)

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
---
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988
---

I can keep posting such papers, but what's the point? The conspiracy theorists will always respond by saying all the data is faked. There's no point in arguing with that kind of "logic". You just point out the conspiracy theorists aren't rational, and walk away.

The poo flinging monkey flings poo again..

The papers you relentlessly post have been debunked and shown incorrect so many times that you bore us in having to refute your garbage over and over again. You refuse to look at the empirical evidence those "denier" blogs make public because they disprove your political agenda and show your pseudoscience fraud.

I am truly glad you choose to keep your blinders on as I dont get hit with the shit your flinging..

Tell me, more correctly, show me how 37ppm over the last 19 years has affected our atmosphere where there has been no temperature rise.

 

[IanC]

is it worth it to respond to Old Rocks? I have the distinct impression I have already discussed this topic with him before.

What's the problem? Just yell some insults to cover your retreat. Go on, call me "poo flinging monkey" now. You know you want to.

.

no retreat, no insults


for you, as you wished....

 

[IanC]

oh dear! is this another coincidental correlation in the 90's that fails miserably since then? NVAP-M was released in 2012, to little fanfare, and has since then been ignored because it doesnt support the 'consensus'.

That's the usual conspiracy nonsense. If you actually look at the NVAP-M graph, it shows an upward trend, then leveling out during the dryer La Nina phases. You know, like expected. It's also Ian's usual cherrypicking fallacy to ignore all the other data that contradicts his conspiracy theories.

I dont see a big correlation but i could be wrong.

 

[IanC]

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 - 2008,
Dessler et al (2008)

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
---
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response

a five year dataset, newly online, with contradictory results depending on where you look? I suppose it was better than the inconvenient NVAP, and the even worse NVAP-M.

not from your quoted link but a similar later paper. see http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf for identification of which reanalyses were used.

 

[IanC]

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
Santer et al (2007)

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
---
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988

well, that was a waste of time. all models, no data. did you even look at your link before you posted it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Mamooth might have accidentally pointed out the OPPOSITE to his premise about ENSO influences on the H2O vapor.

After the last HUMUNGEOUS El Nino in 1998 -- you get that leveling off and slight decline of vapor content.
Could Trenberth be more right than he knows??

He said that ocean thermal cycles are the "safety valve" for heat storage in the oceans. Looks like the 1998 one might have blown off some steam.. Literally. And the OHC charts start flattening (at least NOAA's versions) soon thereafter also..

 

[mamooth]

well, that was a waste of time. all models, no data. did you even look at your link before you posted it?

So you didn't read the paper. Understood. After all, it disagreed with you.

not from your quoted link but a similar later paper. see http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf for identification of which reanalyses were used.

You mean the paper that says "We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative long‐term specific humidity trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons."? Looks like you didn't read that one either.

 

[flacaltenn]

well, that was a waste of time. all models, no data. did you even look at your link before you posted it?

So you didn't read the paper. Understood. After all, it disagreed with you.

not from your quoted link but a similar later paper. see http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf for identification of which reanalyses were used.

You mean the paper that says "We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative long‐term specific humidity trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons."? Looks like you didn't read that one either.

Well --- I guess then "the science is settled"

And the "consensus" has spoken again in unison !!!!

Time to go adjust some "Global Climate Sensitivity" based on all that agreement..

 

[IanC]

well, that was a waste of time. all models, no data. did you even look at your link before you posted it?

So you didn't read the paper. Understood. After all, it disagreed with you.

not from your quoted link but a similar later paper. see http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf for identification of which reanalyses were used.

You mean the paper that says "We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative long‐term specific humidity trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons."? Looks like you didn't read that one either.

perhaps you and I read scientific papers differently. I look to see what data they bring to the table. I then look to see how they arrange it to make a point. I then parse the point to see whether it is logical and what things might have been left out or disguised by misdirection. then I read the conclusions and see if they are supported by the data and the explanation given.

when a paper deals with water vapour in the atmosphere it is important to check how it is being presented. relative humidity, specific humidity, absolute humidity are all somewhat different. it matters what the temperature of the air is, and at what height. I wish I didnt have to be so suspicious with climate science papers but they often seem to have misdirections in them, and sometimes outright fairy tales.

 

[IanC]

sometime in the near past mamooth complained because someone brought up how the missing tropospheric hotspot proved that climate model output data was faulty. he claimed that stratospheric cooling was the only true signature of CO2's impact on the environment.

( long version http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf , short version http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleHotspot.pdf , both from the author of the articles mentioned in the OP. here he discusses the missing hotspot)

mamooth gave a diagram comparing 2xCO2 and 2% increase in solar input.

they look similar except for the cooling at the top in the 2xCO2 graph, although the scale for temperature is different. is he correct that stratospheric cooling is a signature of CO2? yes, of course, no reasonable skeptic denies that. is he correct that the obvious hotspot is not a signature? well, it IS there, and in all the climate models.

here is the actual measurements from literally tens of millions of radiosonde flights

no hotspot!!! (the gap at 60' S is because there is no inhabited land from which to launch a balloon)

does this prove that there is no hotspot? yes and no. perhaps something is happening that thwarts the hotspot from forming although the forcings are there to make one otherwise.

the usual gang at Real Climate went through contortions to try and twist the data into a hotspot by complaining about the accuracy of the balloon data. they had no problem believing that radiosondes could be off by 0.5C in millions of flights but they still believe that XBTs are accurate in the oceans to 0.005C with many fewer readings. (satellites are in good agreement with radiosondes as well)

one guy, Sherwood, even went so far as to say if we just through out the temperature data and replace it with wind shear data as a proxy then there is a hotspot!. goofy huh? perhaps not. perhaps the hotspot would be there except it gets turned into wind before the temp goes up.

does this fix the climate models? NO! they are obviously flawed and missing important features. they missed an opportunity to incorporate something but instead they just disregarded inconvenient data and carried on as before.

I could go on and on but there is little point. no one changes their position at USMB.

 

[mamooth]

Given you've yet again declared a global conspiracy exists, there is indeed little point in trying to talk to you.

Enjoy your lifetime of being ignored. That 's what happens to conspiracy theorists.

 

[IanC]

Given you've yet again declared a global conspiracy exists, there is indeed little point in trying to talk to you.

Enjoy your lifetime of being ignored. That 's what happens to conspiracy theorists.

so you've just gone back to calling anyone who you disagree with a conspiracy theorist. typical

is that the only cork for your popgun, or just your favourite?