Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

[wirebender]

Uh, they don't need to predict what happened three days ago. Because what happened three days ago isn't a "prediction".[/.quote]

A simulation that can not accurately rebuild the past when the parameters are known isn't worth the disk space it took to write it. If it can't rebuild the past when the data are known, it certainly can not be expected to represent the future with any degree of certainty.

The reason simulations can not rebuild the past is because the parameters upon which they are built don't reflect real world physics. They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat when in reality, CO2 nor any other greenhouse gas other than water vapor can do such a thing.

 

[westwall]

Hilarious. They guy is 82 and his specialty has nothing to do with weather. Republicans think all scientists are "experts" on everything.

They also think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a scam.

I agree hilarious, you believe computer models and their predictive ability yet they can't recreate what happened three days ago! And you call that science!

Uh, they don't need to predict what happened three days ago. Because what happened three days ago isn't a "prediction".

Funny, the right wing describes what they imagine science to be and then accuse others that their science is dumb. It's like a blind man describing the moon. Hilarious.

See what I mean? You can't even understand the concept, nor read with comprehension what I wrote. I said (very clearly) the computer models which you bow down to on the alter of AGW alarmism for their predictive ability are not able to RE-CREATE the weather that has ALLREADY OCCURRED.

Do you understand the difference you uneducated putz? No, no you don't, and you have the gall to try and lecture us.....

 

[code1211]

2. Has there been any consideration for instrumentation that was installed many years ago in remote, sparsely populated areas and is now closed in by buildings, people, concrete, and asphalt?

Experts Heat Up Over Berkeley Lab Scientist's Quest to 'Calm' Climate Change Debate - NYTimes.com

BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example.

A study published last year by researchers at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found evidence that some weather station temperature data are of poor quality -- but it concluded the problematic data would add a slight bias toward cooling in climate analyses.

Watts -- who Muller called "a hero" for his weather station work -- isn't convinced. And he's not happy about the preliminary analysis by Muller's BEST team, judging by comments he posted on his blog. They include a letter rebutting Muller's testimony, which Watts submitted yesterday to the House Science panel before its hearing had concluded

Due to the expansion of the urbanized areas of the country, increased paving and growth of the population, one might expect that there would be an increase of the heat island effect and that this would have caused a skewing of readings toward the warmer even in the exact spots that readings had been taken for decades.

In spite of this, the "official adjusted for accuracy" temperature readings have been adjusted in a pretty consistant manner:

Almost all of the readings before 1970 have been adjusted down while almost all of the readings after 1970 were adjust up.

Given the heat island effect, one might have expected the reverse. One would have been in error if they expected that of those who promote AGW.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product | Watts Up With That?

1880, up .2c
1908 down .05c
1934, down .1c
1953, up .1c
1998 up .4c


I'd say this is mostly because of
1# More research into the heat island effect
-finer detail,
Read the giss paper on the corrections and why they did it. It is extremely hard to get a accurate global temperature and gets harder the further in the past you get. There is a error bar.

The error bar is the green vertical lines...In 1891 the first one has .25c of error, but by 1945 it was down to .15c...Who's to say that when you do more research and look through the data that you can't make it more accurate with a more detailed study? Hell in 2000 it was still near .1c.

---There has also been a updated global sst's study that will greatly increase the accuracy of the temperature over the oceans for our historic record. So things are getting finer details and with better accuracy.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) -- Updates to Analysis

I remember when I was in college two things that figure into this discussion. The first was slide rules. Those were the funny ruler looking thingys that the geeks of that day carried and slid back and forth to do calculations.

I also remember a little latter being simply dumbstruck by a calculator with an LED display. What the device could do, and that was formidable for its day was secondary to my awe of the fact that there were iluminated numbers that showed the inputs and the outcomes of the calcualtions.

How does this impact? This technolgy is what made possible the digitized age of data collection.

Prior to 1970, temperatures were read by trudging through the snow to the themometer "out back" and squniting through the bifocals to read where the mercury had risen or fallen vs the little black lines on the metel backing.

Following 1980, probably, all of the temperature devices collecting data for official weather organizations in the USA were digital so "It's about 10 below, Paw" turned into "The exact temperature at 6:07:31 am on January 27 is exactly 10.17 degrees below zero".

Your link explains why the temperatures were adjusted after the year 2000. What is the explanation for the adjustments to the temperatures recorded prior to that.

Also, is there any hit to the confidence level of the Little Black lines v the digital read outs in the period during the change over? In comparing the LBL readings to the digital readings? How about the calibration practices? The exactness and methodologies of the recorders? There are stations that just disappeared the data for a decade or so and then start up again.

If the number is the number, then the number should stand as it is. If the number is obviously wrong and must be changed to make it right, that can mean only one thing and that is that the data is no good.

 

[Trakar]

...They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat...

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[code1211]

...I'm not familiar with the studies cited, but I have seen the scenarios presented by Dr. Hansen and the erroneous predictions he made based on the assumptions he made on the effects of CO2...

Projection
noun /prəˈjekSHən/ 
projections, plural

1.An estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones
- plans based on projections of slow but positive growth
- population projection is essential for planning

Prediction
noun /priˈdikSHən/ 
predictions, plural
Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A prediction or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge. While there is much overlap between prediction and forecast, a prediction may be a statement that some outcome is expected, while a forecast may cover a range of possible outcomes....

presumably you are referring to these (Global climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as Hansen's "predictions?"

Can you demonstrate the errors you assert?

...There is also that CERN thingy that is reproducable in Laboratory conditions (unlike the effects attributed to CO2) that satisfactorily explains the warming of the last 150 years assuming that CO2 has had very minimal effect.

This study?
Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays : Nature News

...The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says...

Now exactly what does it explain? and how?

Speaking to the first point:

Hansen proposed three scenarios over time in which atmospheric CO2 would Increase at an accelerated pace, a consistant pace or would actually diminish. CO2 rose at an accelerated pace. Temperature rose at less than the pace associated with the decrease.

Given that fact that he was specifying conditions and tying outcomes to causes, these were predictions. His prediction, given the scenario that he defined, was wrong.

Speaking to the second point:

CERN, scientifically speaking, is pretty much the Gold Standard of the planet and represents most of the countries and thousands of scientists. Right now and for the last two weeks in Indianapolis, we are suffering with temperatures more like late October than Late Summer.

England and the Netherlands are both concluding summers that have been very cool. This is occurring while the level of CO2 continues to climb with the runaway industrialization of India and China to join the western powerhouses.

People of good will can disagree on things. I'm sure the same is true for scientists. Scientists at CERN seem to think that they have found something. Some of them think that this explains very well the rise of temperature over the period of instrumentation.

From this article:

CERN: The Sun Causes Global Warming | EUTimes.net

results of CERN’s groundbreaking CLOUD experiment:

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research

involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories.

CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done —

demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Unfortunately for CERN’s scientists, it seems that they have come to the ‘wrong’ conclusions. Their Director General, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, perhaps thinking of CERN’s funding, or his own lucrative position, tried his politically correct best to play down his own organization’s results. In an interview with Die Welt, he said:

I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

Climate change writer Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, quickly countered Heuer’s cover-up, stating:

CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.

and

The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.

 

[Trakar]

...I'm not familiar with the studies cited, but I have seen the scenarios presented by Dr. Hansen and the erroneous predictions he made based on the assumptions he made on the effects of CO2...

Projection
noun /prəˈjekSHən/ 
projections, plural

1.An estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones
- plans based on projections of slow but positive growth
- population projection is essential for planning

Prediction
noun /priˈdikSHən/ 
predictions, plural
Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A prediction or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge. While there is much overlap between prediction and forecast, a prediction may be a statement that some outcome is expected, while a forecast may cover a range of possible outcomes....

presumably you are referring to these (Global climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as Hansen's "predictions?"

Can you demonstrate the errors you assert?



This study?
Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays : Nature News

...The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says...

Now exactly what does it explain? and how?

Speaking to the first point:

Hansen proposed three scenarios over time in which atmospheric CO2 would Increase at an accelerated pace, a consistant pace or would actually diminish. CO2 rose at an accelerated pace. Temperature rose at less than the pace associated with the decrease.

Please specify and cite the exact model senario that you believe Hansen overestimated, and the evidence which confirms that this senario projection is either inappropriate or mistaken.

Given that fact that he was specifying conditions and tying outcomes to causes, these were predictions. His prediction, given the scenario that he defined, was wrong.

You need to re-read the definitions of the terms you are applying here. Projections of potential outcomes are established to allow tracking guidelines as conditions unfold, they are not predictions of future events.

Prediction - I will win the lottery next week

Projection - if I buy a lottery ticket this week, my numbers are chosen, and I survive long enough to collect my winnings, I will win the lottery and share in the winnings with all other people who have winning tickets turned in.

Speaking to the second point:
...Scientists at CERN seem to think that they have found something. Some of them think that this explains very well the rise of temperature over the period of instrumentation...

Please present citation and linkage to any objective reporting of this asserted condition. Nothing in any of the science journals regarding these findings or in statements from the lead researchers involved in these experiements and studies seems to support what you are stating. In fact, the researchers themselves have stated repeatedly in both statements in the science journals (as linked and referenced in previous post), and in the interviews with the respected popular science media, that their current work "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."

CERN: The Sun Causes Global Warming | EUTimes.net

This is an op-ed article, and its qualifications and assertions are those of the author not and accurate view of the science or even responsible objective reporting. Given that it cites nothing but noted denialists, the distortion of its perspective is only made more obvious.

Lawrence Solomon - Lawrence Solomon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luboš Motl - Lubo

Nigel Calder - Nigel Calder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have compelling, supportive evidence for your assertions, please present them, citing the partisan rhetorical perspectives of biased op-eds without evidentiary reference and empiric support is neither compelling nor well reasoned.

 

[code1211]

...They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat...

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I've seen this posted numerous times and it implies that as we add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, there will be proportional increases in the climate's temperature. It is generally accepted that this is simply not true.

The first 20 ppm of CO2 pretty much did the job. The rest is increasingly impotent to the point where today, we can cloud the air with the stuff and not have an apprecialble impact on climate.

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

The more CO2 is added after the initial amount of CO2 does not make a great difference in the absorption rate since most of the radiation has been absorbed already:

The first 20 ppmv of CO2 operating as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has the greatest effect on temperature. After about 200 ppmv, CO2 has done its job as a greenhouse gas and has adsorbed almost all the infra-red energy it can absorb. Once the atmosphere is at the present CO2 content … a doubling or quadrupling of the atmospheric CO2 content will have very little effect on atmospheric temperature. (Ian Plimer)
Here is how Thomas Nelson describes it in “Cold Facts on Global Warming”:

It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb virtually all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of less than one km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.

View topic - The Doubling of CO2 and "Diminishing Returns" - Why? | Climate Realists Forum

Climate Change Science

 

[wirebender]

...They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat...

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Fourier was proven wrong not long after he made his assertion. An experiment was done in which glass was replaced with a pane of rock salt, which is invisible to IR and the greenhouse heated up just the same because, as he predicted, the house warmed because convection and conduction were blocked, not because IR was being trapped by the glass.

 

[Trakar]

...They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat...

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I've seen this posted numerous times and it implies that as we add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, there will be proportional increases in the climate's temperature. It is generally accepted that this is simply not true....

First, and foremost, who has said anything about increases in GHG ratios will always result in proportional temperature increases regardless of other variables and considerations? please cite and reference this assertion.

As to what specifically is "generally accepted," what exactly is generally accepted by who?

References

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

CiteSeerX — Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth

http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:17357/n4.Arrhenius1896.pdf

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

[Trakar]

...They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat...

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Fourier was proven wrong not long after he made his assertion. An experiment was done in which glass was replaced with a pane of rock salt, which is invisible to IR and the greenhouse heated up just the same because, as he predicted, the house warmed because convection and conduction were blocked, not because IR was being trapped by the glass.

You are confusing de Saussure with Fourier, who was the one who actually pointed out the error of omitting convection considerations in de Saussure's experiment. Fourier merely proposed the mechanism and processes of radiative transfer. It was up to Tyndall a couple of decades later (late 1850s) to actually formalize the physics and calculate the actual greenhouse effect of various ghgs. Which is why most atmospheric physicists (until quite recently) used the term "the Tyndall effect" instead of "greenhouse effect".

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[IanC]

...They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat...

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Fourier was proven wrong not long after he made his assertion. An experiment was done in which glass was replaced with a pane of rock salt, which is invisible to IR and the greenhouse heated up just the same because, as he predicted, the house warmed because convection and conduction were blocked, not because IR was being trapped by the glass.

hmmm....interesting. the climate models are describing the earth as if it were a greenhouse. a greenhouse works by reducing the chaotic effects of weather. so models are describing what might happen if we ignore the chaos of weather. hmmm.... could someone explain to me again how the recent chaotic weather is proof of climate change? hahahaha

 

[IanC]

...They are built on the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing and retaining heat...

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I've seen this posted numerous times and it implies that as we add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, there will be proportional increases in the climate's temperature. It is generally accepted that this is simply not true.

The first 20 ppm of CO2 pretty much did the job. The rest is increasingly impotent to the point where today, we can cloud the air with the stuff and not have an apprecialble impact on climate.

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

The more CO2 is added after the initial amount of CO2 does not make a great difference in the absorption rate since most of the radiation has been absorbed already:

The first 20 ppmv of CO2 operating as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has the greatest effect on temperature. After about 200 ppmv, CO2 has done its job as a greenhouse gas and has adsorbed almost all the infra-red energy it can absorb. Once the atmosphere is at the present CO2 content … a doubling or quadrupling of the atmospheric CO2 content will have very little effect on atmospheric temperature. (Ian Plimer)
Here is how Thomas Nelson describes it in “Cold Facts on Global Warming”:

It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb virtually all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of less than one km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.

View topic - The Doubling of CO2 and "Diminishing Returns" - Why? | Climate Realists Forum

Climate Change Science

some say that the increase of CO2 is exponential which offsets the logrithmic effect to give a roughly linear relationship.

saturation point is down to about 30 meters from 33. whaterever that means. heat finds a way out by a combination of ways. block one avenue and another is used more, like water flowing down hill.

CO2 is a bit player in the larger scheme. it does have the advantage of being easily measured and, most importantly, can be attributed to sinful mankind.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Fourier was proven wrong not long after he made his assertion. An experiment was done in which glass was replaced with a pane of rock salt, which is invisible to IR and the greenhouse heated up just the same because, as he predicted, the house warmed because convection and conduction were blocked, not because IR was being trapped by the glass.

hmmm....interesting. the climate models are describing the earth as if it were a greenhouse. a greenhouse works by reducing the chaotic effects of weather. so models are describing what might happen if we ignore the chaos of weather. hmmm.... could someone explain to me again how the recent chaotic weather is proof of climate change? hahahaha

Add more energy into the climate system in get more extreme changes within the weather patterns. Lets say that we have 4% more moisture within the Atmosphere then we did 50 years ago...Remember, the amount of "moisture" you get within the saturation point increases with higher temperature...So Antarctica is a desert because of "low" levels of moisture needed to get to saturation of the air mass...For one it takes a crap load of water droplets when condensing on the cloud nuclei to fall to the surface as a raindrop. On the other hand when you raise the temperature to 50f you have more moisture at saturation in which in turn makes for more moisture at condensation to make raindrops, which precipitate to the surface.

If you get 4% avg increase within water vapor---> it means that the air mass has warmed to support the moisture increase at saturation. Imagine for a second that a area didn't warm since 1950 or 1980; well on avg you wouldn't expect a increase in water vapor as once the air mass on the means is saturated it would condense. So it's logical IF water vapor has increase 4% percent like is noted by the noaa that a area be it your backyard or globally overall had to have increased in temperature to support a higher amount of moisture at saturation.

I've been tracking tropical cyclones all my life as that is what I enjoy doing and I understand that a dew point of 70f with a temperature within the 80f's or 90's is going to drop a shit load more moisture on a area for just this reason then what we get here in Portland freaking Oregon. If we live in a warming world this "warmer" area expands in size as I stated within my larger warmer then means and why thread. This makes convective storms more intense(tornadoes, thunderstorms, ect) as they get more energy to break caps and to occur much more often. It is NOT just warm or cold that causes the "shear" that causes convective activity as dry and moist divides like dry lines can cause these events too. More energy with more moisture and a sharper difference of airmass.

Now do I believe tropical cyclones are getting stronger, sure, but only because the sst's are going up...But it doesn't increase the amount of tropical cyclones for it increases shear, which is one of the reasons you'll get more convective storms. So increase in avg intensity, but maybe decrease in tropical cyclones???

 

[IanC]

Fourier was proven wrong not long after he made his assertion. An experiment was done in which glass was replaced with a pane of rock salt, which is invisible to IR and the greenhouse heated up just the same because, as he predicted, the house warmed because convection and conduction were blocked, not because IR was being trapped by the glass.

hmmm....interesting. the climate models are describing the earth as if it were a greenhouse. a greenhouse works by reducing the chaotic effects of weather. so models are describing what might happen if we ignore the chaos of weather. hmmm.... could someone explain to me again how the recent chaotic weather is proof of climate change? hahahaha

Add more energy into the climate system in get more extreme changes within the weather patterns. Lets say that we have 4% more moisture within the Atmosphere then we did 50 years ago...Remember, the amount of "moisture" you get within the saturation point increases with higher temperature...So Antarctica is a desert because of "low" levels of moisture needed to get to saturation of the air mass...For one it takes a crap load of water droplets when condensing on the cloud nuclei to fall to the surface as a raindrop. On the other hand when you raise the temperature to 50f you have more moisture at saturation and which in turn makes for more moisture at condensation to make raindrops, which precipitate to the surface.

If you get 4% avg increase within water vapor it means that the air mass has warmed to support the moisture. Imagine for a second that a area didn't warm since 1950 or 1980; well on avg you wouldn't expect a increase in water vapor as once the air mass on the means is saturated it would condense. So it's logical IF water vapor has increase 4% percent like is noted by the noaa that a area be it your backyard or globally overall had to have increased in temperature to support a higher amount of moisture at saturation.

I've been tracking tropical cyclones all my life as that is what I enjoy doing and I understand that a dew point of 70f with temperatures within the 80f's or 90's is going to drop a shit load more moisture on a area for just this reason then what we get here in Portland freaking Oregon. If we live in a warming world this "warmer" area expands in size. This makes convective storms more intense(tornadoes, thunderstorms, ect) as they get more energy to break caps and to occur much more often.

Now do I believe tropical cyclones are getting stronger, sure, but only because the sst's are going up...But it doesn't increase the amount of tropical cyclones for it increases shear, which is one of the reasons you'll get more convective storms. So increase in avg intensity, but maybe decrease in tropical cyclones???

cyclonic energy is down. I dont know if your purported increase in water vapour is true but if it is then the energy released by the hydrogical cycle swamps the CO2 effect just in the error bars.

again, trying to find a way to blame CO2 is like the drunk who dropped his keys trying to open his car door but is looking for them under the lamp standard because the light is better there.

 

[code1211]

Please cite the physics or basic climate science that you claim makes this assertion.

The science, as first understood and demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, is that GHGs absorb and re-emit long-wave radiations.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I've seen this posted numerous times and it implies that as we add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, there will be proportional increases in the climate's temperature. It is generally accepted that this is simply not true....

First, and foremost, who has said anything about increases in GHG ratios will always result in proportional temperature increases regardless of other variables and considerations? please cite and reference this assertion.

As to what specifically is "generally accepted," what exactly is generally accepted by who?

References

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

CiteSeerX — Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth

http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:17357/n4.Arrhenius1896.pdf

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

By not clearly stating the decreasing impact of increasing levels of CO2, the implication is there. It may be more of a political implication than scientific, but the discussion is occurring in political circles and is dependant for added funding on guiding climate amateurs who vote to a conclusion.

Regardiong the phrase "generally accepted": Are you saying that any increase in CO2 will result in a straight, linear increase in the temperature of the climate? If that is the case, then,when CO2 was at levels of about 15 times those of today, temperature should have been about 800 degrees. It wasn't. Clearly, there is a dimishing effect of the impact of CO2 on climate as concentrations increase.

I would think that proving that the increase is linear would be what needs to be proven since it is simply not logical. If it is accepted that the effect is dimishing by anyone who can think, then I would assert that "generally accepted" is pretty accurate.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

 

[ScienceRocks]

hmmm....interesting. the climate models are describing the earth as if it were a greenhouse. a greenhouse works by reducing the chaotic effects of weather. so models are describing what might happen if we ignore the chaos of weather. hmmm.... could someone explain to me again how the recent chaotic weather is proof of climate change? hahahaha

Add more energy into the climate system in get more extreme changes within the weather patterns. Lets say that we have 4% more moisture within the Atmosphere then we did 50 years ago...Remember, the amount of "moisture" you get within the saturation point increases with higher temperature...So Antarctica is a desert because of "low" levels of moisture needed to get to saturation of the air mass...For one it takes a crap load of water droplets when condensing on the cloud nuclei to fall to the surface as a raindrop. On the other hand when you raise the temperature to 50f you have more moisture at saturation and which in turn makes for more moisture at condensation to make raindrops, which precipitate to the surface.

If you get 4% avg increase within water vapor it means that the air mass has warmed to support the moisture. Imagine for a second that a area didn't warm since 1950 or 1980; well on avg you wouldn't expect a increase in water vapor as once the air mass on the means is saturated it would condense. So it's logical IF water vapor has increase 4% percent like is noted by the noaa that a area be it your backyard or globally overall had to have increased in temperature to support a higher amount of moisture at saturation.

I've been tracking tropical cyclones all my life as that is what I enjoy doing and I understand that a dew point of 70f with temperatures within the 80f's or 90's is going to drop a shit load more moisture on a area for just this reason then what we get here in Portland freaking Oregon. If we live in a warming world this "warmer" area expands in size. This makes convective storms more intense(tornadoes, thunderstorms, ect) as they get more energy to break caps and to occur much more often.

Now do I believe tropical cyclones are getting stronger, sure, but only because the sst's are going up...But it doesn't increase the amount of tropical cyclones for it increases shear, which is one of the reasons you'll get more convective storms. So increase in avg intensity, but maybe decrease in tropical cyclones???

cyclonic energy is down. I dont know if your purported increase in water vapour is true but if it is then the energy released by the hydrogical cycle swamps the CO2 effect just in the error bars.

again, trying to find a way to blame CO2 is like the drunk who dropped his keys trying to open his car door but is looking for them under the lamp standard because the light is better there.

There are many patterns and factors to consider when looking at the development of a tropical cyclone. There is a cycle within the Atlantic called the 'AMO'; what I have noticed within +Amo patterns like we have been since 1995-2010 are warmer overall Atlantic temperatures , so more energy to form a tropical cyclone, but most importantly within my research is the extra-tropical to tropical cyclone high latitude storms are more focused late in the season within the northeast to north-central Atlantic in NOV, Dec time frame...Well the MDR or the area between the cape verdes and lesser Antilles are more favorable as the area of "ulls" and extratropical systems aren't developing within the means of the season for 1 and for 2 the sst's are more favorable. Yes, within the 1970s-1980's what you had with the -amo is far more extratropical systems at 25-30 north(even gulf of mexico, within the peak) turning into tropical cyclones. This induces shear, which is very bad for the development of a tropical cyclone. The main two main reasons that +enso(aka nino years) are less favorable throughout the Atlantic is simply by 1# southwesterly shear throughout the caribbean and MDR going against the easterly's and 2# higher pressure within the tropics as the warm water within the Eastern and central Pacific causes low pressure there and high pressure within the Atlantic. This is all bad for tropical cyclone development.

You also have the NAO that during a + event causes the Azores, Bermuda high to strengthen across the Atlantic, which causes cape verde storms to move westward under it, while -nao cause the greenland/southeastern Canada trough to develop and cause recurving cyclones out sea. See there are many factors to consider when dealing with something that needs to develop within a environment that most of the world can't sustain for very long...Hell within my area the avg wind shear at 200-300 mbs is at least 40-50 knots even within summer and nearly 180 knots at times in winter...

To be truthful the whole of earth when it comes to tropical cyclones have there own cycles. You think the global temperature have noise within the natural variables in trying to figuring how much of the warming is caused by forcing of the green house gases, wow, you have seen nothing yet when your dealing with tropical cyclones. Of course a warmer ocean=low pressure and more tchp to tap into for a lucky tropical cyclone that finds its way into favorable upper level conditions. Wouldn't you agree with that?

 

[IanC]

Matthew- I must admit I dont care as much about ENSO as I should. do you read bob tisdale's reports? where do you get your info from? I remember being disappointed when bob showed how that graph with the PDO and AMO equaling temps at an r2 of about.8 was flawed because they are calculated differently. how often does the warmist side go out of its way to discredit strong visual 'proof' (cough- hockey stick)?

 

[Trakar]

By not clearly stating the decreasing impact of increasing levels of CO2, the implication is there...

Please reference the published scientific literature that spells out your understanding of "decreasing impact of increasing levels of CO2."

Saturation does occur, but until the entire column of the atmosphere from ground to orbit, is saturated (a condition that isn't even achieved on Venus with a 90 bar nearly exclusive CO2 atmosphere), it really doesn't impact the issues of atmospheric radiative transfer, it merely shifts the levels that emit the final exiting long-wave radiation.

It may be more of a political implication than scientific, but the discussion is occurring in political circles and is dependant for added funding on guiding climate amateurs who vote to a conclusion.

These mysterious others need to devote some more time to the mainstream science understandings before they begin trying to decide between valid and invalid policy.

Regardiong the phrase "generally accepted": Are you saying that any increase in CO2 will result in a straight, linear increase in the temperature of the climate?

In a situation where the only variable is CO2 proportion, and we are looking at an isolated sample, then yes, determining the amount of long wavelength energy that a given volume of atmosphere will absorb and re-emit is a pretty straight forward and simple calculation. When we begin talking about the complex interactions of multiple simultaneously interacting positive and negative feedback factors in variable flux with a stratified atmosphere and diversely composed radiating surface structure, then no, there is very little that is easily or simply described. Over all, the greater long-wavelength absorptive gas proportions we have in the atmosphere, the greater the delay of the exit of that long wavelength energy from our atmosphere.

I would think that proving that the increase is linear would be what needs to be proven since it is simply not logical. If it is accepted that the effect is dimishing by anyone who can think, then I would assert that "generally accepted" is pretty accurate.

Not sure what logic your thinking follows, but what you state in this paragraph is neither obvious nor supported in its assertion.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

What is your understanding of what this graph illustrates and the significance you draw from what it illustrates?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, I was interested in finding 2010 co2 forcing...So I looked and found the equation and did the math.

ΔF = αln(C/Co)

a=constant, which is 5.35
So a=5.35
Natural log=ln

^F=5.35In(c/co)

Now we figure for c,
well c for 2010 was 389. 87 ppm
and the co is 278 ppm, which I think would be for 1750

NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

So now we put it together
^f=5.35ln(389.87/278)

What do you get for the forcing for 2010?
5.35ln(389.87/278)=1.8083678 or 1.81 rounded up watts per meter^2

We're now .52 watts/meter^2 higher then 1990(1.29 to 1.81)
It was 1.512 watts/meter^2 in 2000, so near .3 watts/meter^2

.3/.52=57.69% percent of the solar forcing increase since 1990 has occurred since 2000. We've gained more forcing in the 2000's then 1990's at a faster rate.

2000-2010=57.69%
1990-2000=42.31%

2009 co2 forcing was 1.760 watts/meter^2, which is 1.81-1.76=.05 watts/meter^2 increase over 2009 in 2010.

The increase over 2008 for 2009 was 1.76-1.739=.021 watts/meter^2 over 2008.

What this means is 2010 was a very good year for co2 forcing. That is the conclusion.

 

[wirebender]

Add more energy into the climate system in get more extreme changes within the weather patterns.

Where does this additional energy come from Matthew? The sun is the earth's only energy source. If you want additional energy, it must come from the sun and if the additional energy is coming from the sun, there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

You can not multiply the energy within the system by changing the makeup of the system. The energy comes from an outside source and what we get from that source is all there is. That is, in a nutshell, the fatal flaw within the hypothesis of AGW. It assumes that somehow by altering the makeup of the system you can somehow multiply the energy coming from an outside source. Refer to the law of conservation of energy.