The air continues to seep out of the global warming consensus balloon, ladies and gentlemen.
Meet Augie Auer, the former University of Wyoming professor of atmospheric science turned New Zealand meteorologist who isn’t buying what soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry global warming alarmists are selling.
As reported by the New Zealand Timaru Herald (emphasis added throughout):
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, [Auer] maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Unlike folks such as Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio, Auer has actually studied and taught this science. As such, he walks the walks AND talks the talk:
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Auer correctly concluded: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt."
Yes it has, Doctor. Unfortunately in this instance, the hunt is more serious because there are a lot more people involved, and the consequences far more dire.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
I bet this guy will never b
May 18, 2007 - 15:21 ET by charlietexasI bet this guy will never be asked to be on "The View". or to debate Al Gore.
When the carbon credit issu
May 18, 2007 - 15:26 ET by WolfremWhen the carbon credit issue began, I thought of setting up a website to offer carbon credits by planting trees. And when the liberal fools parted with their money, I would have the trees planted...........in Israel. (Donated in their name, of course.)
Wouldn't that have been a hoot.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
Five years? It's a joke now!
May 18, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Hero SquadFive years? It's a joke now!
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
The air continues to seep o
May 18, 2007 - 15:39 ET by MilesDThe air continues to seep out of the global warming consensus balloon, ladies and gentlemen.
Not a minute too soon!
Folks who jumped on this bandwagon a little too quickly - admit it, it didn't look right to begin with. No one will fault you for it.
Long live sensible people!
I had this very discussion wi
May 18, 2007 - 15:43 ET by NL207I had this very discussion with a belag on a thread a few days ago.
Auer is not the only scientist I have seen reporting that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect. I have read the original calculation was attributed to a Phd Meteorologist, Dr. Joe Sobel, but that the original paper is not available online. Without the paper, I really can't comment of the truth of that attributation. I would like to know where Auer got this number.
My own simple estimate based on the IPCC's accepted numbers suggests CO2 is 8% or less of the greenhouse effect. This is pretty close to Auer's number. Recall there is a big difference between empirical estimates and data/theoretical based computations. If Auer's number is correct, this would suggest the IPCC's latest numbers on warming might be slightly exaggerated. This wouldn't surprise me since the 2007 report gives values for last century warming that are 25-50% higher than it reported in its previous two reports.
With very little effort, it
May 18, 2007 - 17:41 ET by MilesDWith very little effort, it is easy to see that the influence can't be anything even close to 8%.
The partial pressure of water in humid air at 20 deg. C is a hundred times the partial pressure of CO2.
But the IR absorption of CO2 already overlaps the IR absorption of water by at least 80%.
So you are already cutting down the influence of CO2 by at least 800 times, and there is no way that is going to have any influence that looks like 8%
I dont have my Perry's handy
May 18, 2007 - 21:19 ET by NiftySwellI dont have my Perry's handy but why did you pick 20 degrees?
It's just a number I had be
May 18, 2007 - 22:41 ET by MilesDIt's just a number I had been using for the temp over the ocean at mid lattitudes at 500 ft for some wind evaluation, coulld have used any other.
Mole frac CO2 =0.00035, at 1 atm = 29.92 in Hg
Psat H20 = 0.36, 0.52, 0.74 in Hg @ 50, 60, 70 deg. F
Miles,Would you have anything
May 18, 2007 - 22:49 ET by botgMiles,
Would you have anything in regards to evaporation rates of the oceans and the effect of GW on them? Also would that cause more clouds (reflection) and rain (cooling)?
In a thread last night another poster was saying that clouds are very differcult for the climate models to predict
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Miles,the thread is found her
May 18, 2007 - 23:23 ET by botgMiles,
the thread is found here to put it in context
http://newsbusters.org/node/12762#comment-341568
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The sea level of some islan
May 19, 2007 - 11:44 ET by MilesDThe sea level of some island groups around the Equator lowers in periods of increased heat (sun), as a result of increased evaporation. This counter balances effects of "ice cap melting". (That is a whole story in itself, and from what I see, quite impossible.)
Clouds are a difficult thing to model. The effect of increased sun can be modeled as increased evaporation and so increased clouds, and so insulation, and so cooling, and so rain, and so dissiaption, and so on and on.
This has not been the difficulty of modeling the effects of clouds for me. Surprisingly, the overall cloud cover of the Earth can reasonably be assumed to be constant in time - over long periods!
The actual percent of total cloud cover has not been my difficulty to model.
The real difficulty to me has been WHERE the coverage occurs, and at WHAT TIME that coverage takes place.
It matters a great deal if the clouds are covering the land or the sea, and it matters what time this occurs, because longer wavelengths (in the IR) are reflected from water preferentially at decreasing angles of the Sun (below about 35 degrees from the horizon).
Even a statistical picture of this is difficult to obtain, because the results vary wildly, and the distributions have many modes (that is to say, picutures of global temperatures crop up with seemingly many means. )
I don't know how to get my arms around that and I don't know if I ever will. This is the problem I have examined, and other people are dedicated to other problems involving clouds
Miles, thanks for putting up
May 19, 2007 - 12:05 ET by botgMiles, thanks for putting up with us less technical plebs. I had another thought. Evaporation causes wator-vapor which holds heat. Is there a threshold where the vapor forms clouds which reflect.
Would not the WHERE and WHEN distribute evenly over a sufficient time lapse or at least into specified percentiles of land/sea; seasonal variables
(picutures of global temperatures crop up with seemingly many means i almost got snarkey enough to ask what are the medians and modes of the means; but not quite)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Miles, thanks for putting u
May 19, 2007 - 12:30 ET by MilesDMiles, thanks for putting up with us less technical plebs. Thanks for putting up with the miles of talk I had
another thought. Evaporation causes wator-vapor which holds heat. Is
there a threshold where the vapor forms clouds which reflect. Depends on amount of dust etc, depends on size of droplet, other things. Size of droplet is influenced by concentration of other things than water, as the vapor pressure increases as a result of increased curvature (Kelvin relation) or is reduced by concentration of something else. Anyway clouds are not formed at equilibrium
Would
not the WHERE and WHEN distribute evenly over a sufficient time lapse
or at least into specified percentiles of land/sea; seasonal variables Yes and no, it all depends on one's patience to look at it, I think generally accepted ways to interpret it can be derived, by other people smarter than me
(picutures of global temperatures crop up with seemingly many means i almost got snarkey enough to ask what are the medians and modes of the means Answer: What they always are for a weighted log distribution and not for a Gaussian distribution, at least from whatI have seen ; but not quite)
Now, out to do some real work for my wife, who wonders what the hell is it that I waste so much time on the computer about. Answer, frustration about the possible future with a Govt led by some 100% certified left wing lunatics
I did a bounds analysis worki
May 19, 2007 - 01:40 ET by NL207I did a bounds analysis working backwards from the observed temperature data and assuming the entire observed change was caused by CO2 increase and that for small values of change, i. e. tempetrature variation less than 1% in degrees K, linear approximation was sufficient to capture the functionality Using the IPCC data under those assumptions gave the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect as a MAXIMUM of 8%. The real value only needs be less than 8% for that analysis to have produced a correct result.
20 degrees C is too high. I assume you used that value because that is what you had tables or handy data for. The mean near surface temperature of the earth is 15 degrees C. [288 K].
I think that considering the IR spectral overlap of CO2 and H2O in this calculation is an error. Photon absorption in a gas volume is a statisical process whose rate is dependent on the relative densities of photon flux passing through the volume and un-excited recipient molecules. The photons don't care what kind of molecules they are as long as the vibrational energies of their bonds are approximately the energy of the photon. The concentrations represented as numbers of molecules per liter ought to sum for purposes of computing the liklihood of an absorption.
Good for you and I'm glad t
May 19, 2007 - 02:58 ET by MilesDGood for you and I'm glad to have the discussion.
I found the 20 deg C mark by normalizing the height of the troposphere to the height of 1 atm and averaging.
You are discussing the physics of photon interactions with molecules. The absorption, in effect, results in a shadow, and if radiation is shadowed once, it is shadowed for good. (Two umbrellas, one under the other, have the same effect as one umbrella if neither allows the transmission of sunlight.)
: )
We are actually discussing t
May 19, 2007 - 09:33 ET by NL207We are actually discussing two porous "umbrellas". Neither of them is dense enough to completely block the "photon rain" and both of them are in solution with the rest of the atmosphere and each other. This analogy ignores re-emission.
I haven't studied quantum and statistical mechanics in 35 years or so, but if I recall the physics correctly, absorption is modeled at the molecular level as I described. Not all photons are absorbed at any density of the "umbrella". Statistical Mechanics predicts a few will escape anyway, though the number may be so small as to be insignificant. Folks who don't do physics can look at the atmosphere's absorption of some IR wavelengths sort of like sunscreen's absorption of UV. Varying thicknesses of active ingredients yield varying spf factors. spf70 blocks it all, but spf8 lets you tan.
Re-emission in the absence of a trigger is also a statistical process with the difference that the re-emitted photons have Poynting vectors which have been scattered from their original pre-absorptive trajectories. Some of the re-emitted photons will be released in trajectories that were little different than prior to absorption. The rest will scatter. For those who have Powerpoint, this might be good.
A more scholarly reference. This man must have a published paper this article is referencing, but I don't see it on any of the public sites. Most folks here can't "see" ISI or Scitex.
Yes we are talking about tw
May 19, 2007 - 10:10 ET by MilesDYes we are talking about two porous "umbrellas" - to OTHER wavelengths. When EM radiation of certain energy is "absorbed" it means that, to some percent of the initial intensity (technically, to the log of the ratio of transmitted to initial intensity) the EM radiation is NOT transmitted through the medium!
What happens to the photons? Well that depends on the energy of the photons and it depends what is doing the "absorbing."
In the IR, the photon energy is the same as (multiples of the) vibrational energies of many molecules.
Such as CO2, for which the photons are resonant with the stretching of the carbon and oxygen bond in a couple of modes, as one bond, and another as two bonds between two oxygens. This occurs near 6 micrometers in length.
In any case the EM radiation (IR light) is not transmitted by the CO2 (to a certain percent) at the wavelengths for which this occurs.
What happens to the energy? It is obviously dissipated as heat, as the molecule returns to equilibrium with surroundings -
OR, the molecule assumes an energy consistent with the statistical distribution of energies of (gas) molecules at that temperature (given by a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution as described by kinetic theory).
That is, the energy is dissipated in the translational modes of the gas molecule, the distribution of speeds of which is fixed in the statistical average by kinetic theory at a given temperature.
Smile. (A variation of my name, not meant as a joke)
Now I can agree with you.The
May 19, 2007 - 15:29 ET by NL207Now I can agree with you.
The important point for the laymen is that Carbon-Oxygen and Hydrogen-Oxygen bonds do not "like" the same wavelengths, but the wavelengths they like most are in the IR band for both types of bonds.
And my point is made. The two molecules are additive when in solution in the same volume. They are both absorbing heat but at slightly different wavelengths, meaning one does not discount the other as you had postulated earlier.
Almost - not quite There i
May 19, 2007 - 17:30 ET by MilesDAlmost - not quite
There is a small range of energies ("bands") in the IR for which the influence of the IR on the vibrations of CO2 and H2O are the same energies. Which one gets influenced depends on which one gets hit (and there are a lot more H2O hanging around so the probability is higher*), in either case, one IR photon at that energy influences the vibrational modes of one molecule only (if any at all), and not both.
The net result is to speed up a water or carbon dioxide molecule a little, but those speeds distribute with the speeds of the rest (97+%) of the air at that temperature - most of any increase in average speed of the air molecules (i.e., increase in the air temperature) is the result of the water.
The bulk of the remaining components (argon, nitrogen, oxygen) are not influenced by IR - they are transparent to IR radiation (diathermanous).
*technical note: photon capture by molecule depends on overall probability for capture as represented by cross section, pretty much the same for water and carbon dioxide
With this modification: one d
May 21, 2007 - 00:34 ET by NL207With this modification: one does not discount the other except to the extent that their absorption spectra overlap, and not even this if one or the other is not present in sufficient concentration to actually absorb 100% of its preferred wavelengths.
Now are you satisfied.
One more thing I forgot to
May 19, 2007 - 18:26 ET by MilesDOne more thing I forgot to add. Although the water is a small percent of the atmosphere, the influence on the temperature is large (20 deg C or more!) because the water in the atmosphere is hit by IR in two or more directions - from the incoming light, and from the heat absorbed by the ground which re-radiates at a lower temperature (longer IR wavelength); this can again be reflected by the clouds, ... or, esentially remain static right near the Earth in a fog!
The only way for the fog to lose heat (at night) is radiant exchange outside the atmosphere, since the ground will typically be warmer than the fog
Water vapour and CO2
May 20, 2007 - 04:03 ET by belagI looked at some of your discussion.
Let me put forth a relevant question. Have any of you read about the "other side"'s comments on water vapour? Do they agree with you? Disagree?
If this is such a big thing, wouldn't the other side have something to say about this?
I'll give you what I understand. Water vapour is a "feedback" and not a "forcing". In short, you can't directly control water vapour much. You can only control it through other greenhouse gases. If you increase CO2 you'll increase water vapour indirectly.
If you are interested, you can check out this site.
Again, the point is: just read the explanation. Then you can decide whether you agree with it or not. Be honest in your search for the truth.
You're raising a good point.
May 20, 2007 - 09:04 ET by dahliatraversYou're raising a good point. Subject to the comment of scientists who post on this site, I'll stipulate that water vapour is a feedback.
The point about water vapor, as far as I'm concerned, has not been whether it was a propellant but that that it dilutes man's already fairly small greenhouse gas contribution (5.53% before water vapor) to a non-event (.28% when water vapor is accounted for).
With an initial apology for
May 20, 2007 - 11:11 ET by MilesDWith an initial apology for possibly confusing more people than enlightening them, I will try to explain some of their math.
The model is easy for a chemical or electrical engineer to understand, because they model systems in this manner all the time.
Basically, they want to model the climate like a radio amplifier. The goal is to model the incoming power from the sun, to represent how incoming solar power will actually have an influence (or be experienced) in the atmosphere. So they want to model the gain, or effective increase in power (per unit of temperature) that solar power coming into the atmosphere will experience when it is actually within the atmosphere.
They assume that the influence of CO2 is constant on this gain (forces the influence of incoming solar power). This they say, will increase water in the atmosphere, so water is a feedback from the output increase in gain from the CO2.
They then have an expression for the overall gain, which becomes infinite very quickly.
The rest of their work is devoted to showing how this expression did not get as large yet over the last 30 years as it predicts it will. They explain this by the influence of aerosols, and some other things. These, they say, are going to stop having an influence because they get used up, and when that happens, catastrophe, so there you are.
QED.
All my hollering so far that the two influences, water and carbon dioxide, cannot be taken to be linear and independent in this manner has not generally been weighted heavily, but there are a number of people who do not represent it this way now.
The thing has to be revisited, and "deniers" are the only people trying to get heard.
Sorry if this enlightens no one
Milesit sounds as if you are
May 20, 2007 - 11:26 ET by botgMiles
it sounds as if you are saying that the models take the CO2 levels as effecting warming in a parabolic or hyperbolic (squared or cubed) manner (i assumed based on your it quickly gets to infinity). It is also taken in isolation without any counterbalancing factors. With the long history of climate on earth and higher CO2 levels than today the assumption must be incorrect. Did i get the gist?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
No, maybe I shouldn't have
May 20, 2007 - 11:43 ET by MilesDNo, maybe I shouldn't have tried to use words instead of symbols.
In the expression for the gain, the influence for water, F (as we will call it) is in the DENOMINATOR, as (1 - F). So when F = 1, this is infinite. (They assume F is a constant and = 0.5 now but could change.)
We know how much CO2 we have added over the last 30 years. Their model predicts that we should have seen an increase in temperature 3x as large as actually seen. So they say aerosols acted to stop it. (In the expression, including aerosols, we now have (1 - F + A) where A=0.25)
They say A will change when we don't have it any more.
My contention is the whole thing is not right.
This does not give the correct influence.
Gotta stop for now, see ya later
- MDD
thank you miles
May 20, 2007 - 11:52 ET by botgthanks
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
CO2 water and aerosols
May 20, 2007 - 18:15 ET by belag(To MilesD)
I'm still not understanding your point. Are we referring to the same site?
In the page there's no concern that the increase predicted is 3x the actual one. And the role of aerosols was just regarding the volcanic eruption.
If you can elaborate what the problem is maybe I can respond.
Thickness.You didn't understa
May 21, 2007 - 00:49 ET by NL207Thickness.
You didn't understand this argument when i made. Now you don't understqand it when Miles makes it.
This system that the AGW people have devised in their models cannot represent the actual system faithfully because it is a volatile positive feedback system. These things are stable only for a narrow range if inputs. the paleoclimate history of the earth says the climate is stable and has been over the last 500 million years at least. The AGW'ers have constructed a model that, independently of any inputs made by man, is not stable. i.e., some noise signal, like an impacting comet or a VEI level 8 event can drive it into a saturation state from which the model says it cannot recover without an external input, yet the Paleoclimate history says it did recover and it recovered so quickly it is impossible to identify these events with just a cursory examination of the history. The only sorts of systems that do this are overdamped systems, those dominated by negative feedback.
Understanding the argument
May 21, 2007 - 02:30 ET by belagAs far as I was concerned, I was talking to you about quite another issue (the lag of CO2 against temperature).
This is regarding the role of water vapour in GW.
I don't understand why you keep calling the model a "volatile feedback system"? How do you know it's volatile? And it won't stabilize? I already gave you an example of a feedback system which will stabilize.
One last thing here, I can'
May 21, 2007 - 13:00 ET by MilesDOne last thing here, I can't let it sit
With all apologies to botg, Noel, Dahlia, and all else getting sick and tired of seeing me throw more of this out
Belag, there IS NO MEANS TO STABILIZE THE IPCC FEEDBACK SYSYEM NONE IT CANNOT BE DONE
That is the problem with what it predicts!
With the sullphate aerosol thing - do you see where it is going? It will give rise to clouds, then rain, and then get washed out, then the gain (amplification) goes out of control, and the heat and its effects cannot be stabilized.
It is preposterous! Nothing like that has ever happened in the Earth history - nothing - not even during the prehistoric period (50-500M years ago) when the CO2 content in the atmosphere had to be far higher than it is today (the oil and coal in the ground had to come from someplace!)
Climate is a periodic thing, motion and changes resulting from periodic variations in sun (daily and season to season). Within 10 or 11 year periods, the solar ouput is constant (as far as the climate is concerned) and we see variations in temperature here and there on the Earth, but overall, the climate stays the same. Over tens of thousands of year periods, the distance to the Sun changes between the Winter and theSummer. Now, the sun is closest in Winter of the Northern Hemisph, and farthest in the Summer. When this is reversed, the climate changes all over the Earth.
Nothing else will change this. Because you can't even put more than about 2x times the amount of CO2 there is now in the atmosphere, and there isn't enough methane on the Earth to do it
(no more - promise!)
Actually Miles, I enjoy readi
May 21, 2007 - 20:59 ET by botgActually Miles,
I enjoy reading your posts as i enjoy learning. The main reasons i suggested a forum was to have the info available AND to save you from having to repeat yourself
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Yes. You proposed one with
May 21, 2007 - 19:04 ET by NL207Yes. You proposed one with a carefully selected feedback gain of 0.5 which was stable in the absence of large noise. The range of permissible gain for such systems is [0.0 , (1.0 - NF)) where NF is the noise factor of that system's inputs. If the inputs have 10 or 20% noise, the gain of the system cannot be any more than about 0.8 to remain stable.
What's the gain being proposed by the AGW crowd? If I recall, its darn near 1. They claim that an X induced increase in CO2 will produce enough warmth to cause a Y increase in natural CO2 where Y/X is nearly 1.0, do they not? A little noise and this system expands out of control, limited only by the size and availability of the natural carbon reservoir providing the positive feedback.
How do I know such systems are unstable? Mathematics says they are. I know you are familiar with the terms under damped, critically damped and over damped? Maybe you will explain this to the good people here who've not studied advanced mathematics? The differential equations repesenting positive feedback systems usualy have what sort of Q?
MilesD obviously knows about this. Maybe we will be lucky and ACA and HDM will stop in as well.
Feedback gain
May 21, 2007 - 20:51 ET by belagMay I ask where you got the gain Y/X to be close to 1?
Here's a disussion on runaway effects. It's a fairly informal discussion, but you can find references if you probe a bit deeper.
Another Realclimate reference
May 21, 2007 - 22:01 ET by NL207Another Realclimate reference. Do you read anything but AGW propaganda? Or is this stuff your work? Not knowing who you are, I have assumed you are actually one of the contributors over there. Others reading your posts here should assume the same until proven otherwise.
The article you reference doesn't say a thing about the actual computed gain of the positive feedback loops it mentions.
It does say this: "You can think of the Earth's climate (unlike Venus') as having an 'r' less than one" where 'r' is the gain factor we have spoken of. "You can think of it as" .... Not, "it has ...." This is just wishful hand waving with no supporting argumentation.
"some 'tipping point' the system can flip and go rapidly into another state"
and it says this: "Even in simple systems, small positive feedbacks can lead to stable situations as long as the 'gain' factor is less than one "
This looks a lot like what MilesD and I have said about this kind of system. In complex, non-linear feedback systems like the Earth's climate system, even small positive feedbacks can lead to significant instability. More than this, such systems have no analytical solutions and very poor predictability, implying its not likely these climate models are going to corrcetly predict the earth's climate 100, or even 10, years from now as the IPCC has been doing.
I love this line:
"but there is no evidence of such multiple steady states in the Holocene"
The Holocene, folks, is the CURRENT epoch. It is declared to have begun at the end of the last ice age, or a little over 10,000 years ago. The Earth has a climate history that is thought to be 4.5 BILLION years old. Realclimate are working a pretty small sample for this opinion, aren't they?
I notice this "discussion" on RealClimate very carefully avoids the subject of the model assumptions being used to make climate predictions. What is the positive feedback gain being used in those models, Belag? I think you know.
I make my estimate about the Y/X relationship in these models from the predictions being made from these climate models and the fragmentary information I have seen published about the inner workings of one climate model. The only way these models can predict the extreme warming cases outlined by IPCC is with gains in some of these feedback loops that are close to 1. Again, I don't see that the authors of this piece at RealClimate are being open about the gain factors they are using in their models.
Feedback gain
May 22, 2007 - 01:28 ET by belagI'll make my point once again. There's no reason to suppose that the Y/X ratio is greater than one (if you have a reference, I'll be glad to hear it). All feedback systems, complex or otherwise, do not lead to instability.
Again, read your last paragraph again. Do you believe that you've made a serious argument that Y/X is greater than 1? Apart from a vague, "I read it somewhere".
If you want to know the factor, read the models. If you can't read it, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Hmm..... I see something on a
May 22, 2007 - 21:59 ET by NL207Hmm..... I see something on a website, but don't bookmark it, and later can't find it. As you've noticed, I usually have pretty good reference material at hand for an amatuer. And I still think YOU are a contributor to RealClimate.
You on the other hand, obfuscate and backpedal completely. You don't give a number for the feedback at all, just like RealClimate, who wave their hands and say, well, it's less than 1 and supply no proofs. 0.9999 is less than 1. If there is a model that publishes its algorithms, why don't you link it? I'd certainly like to see it. I'm sure there are a few other readers here who would as well. In the immortal words of MassLiberal, link or slink.
Striking how not a one of these climate modelers you quote has a website publication of their model in source code, or failing that, a detailed description of the model they have exercised. Why do you suppose that is? There IS one modeling organization who is somewhat open about their model, the Hadley Center in England. They claim to have a model that correctly regresses all data sets. Upon closer inspection, it is as S. Fred Singer has observed, they actually have two models, at least one of which is correct on any interval. [If and when they have one model that correctly simulates all eras, then I will start to put some credibility in what that model says.]
Now, to address another of your curious faith issues. You have stated in he past that you think the AGW position on the effects of increasing solar output upon the climate is correct, that is, this effect is neglible. I have maintained that the outrageous correlation factor between sunspots and rising global temperatures is indicative of an undiscovered connecting mechanism. Your side bases its opinion on the blackbody radiator model of the earth, which is only a close approximation. The Earth has albedo, therefore it is not a perfect blackbox radiator. The AGW camp argues the difference albedo makes is so small as to be neglible.
The paper referenced by this article argues differently. It argues that the Earth's albedo is variable and in part dependent upon solar activity. Periods of very high solar magnetic activity coincide by direct cause and effect relationship with decresed albedo, thereby amplifying the effect of increasing solar output. And it suffers from the same scintific defect as AGW theory does: A lack of experimental validation.
I maintain that climate science is a`science of incomplete information. Deductive reasoning as applied by AGWers to the solar output question is incapable of discovering new truths. Only inductive reasoning is able to do that. The paper mentioned above may not correctly or fully explain the observed data, but it is a certain thing that dismissing the very strong statistical correlation between solar output variations and global temperatures based on an approximation isn't going to explain anything either.
CO2 and solar radiation
May 23, 2007 - 00:03 ET by belagLet's separate out the two issues here
a) CO2 lagging
termperature: I suggested a feedback mechanism. As I told you in the
beginning, I am a non-expert. I don't have details about the feedback
gain, but I find it extremely unlikely that it would lead to a runaway
effect (there are so few runaway effects in nature). Now, if you have a
serious argument about why you think the feedback factor is greater
than 1, I'd like to hear it.
If you want to know the details,
there are enough references on the article I cited. Why denounce it
when you don't understand it?
Let me invert the question. Why
do you think the feedback factor is greater than 1 and the effect would
be a runaway one? Is it based on any data?
b) Solar forcing: Let me make a crucial point. This is made also in the article you cited.
The operative issue is, can solar activity explain the temperature rise after 1970 (which is the current period of warming)?
The Svensmark-Christensen paper has many issues, but one of it
is that the graph stops at 1975. This is the critical point. Without
the greenhouse gas theory, we cannot explain the rise during the current period.
Again, the
issue is the same. Have you looked at the critique of their paper at
all? If you can find problems with the critique, it's understandable.
But to denounce it without even reading it and accepting your own
source as truth is not correct.
"There are very few runa
May 23, 2007 - 00:56 ET by NL207"There are very few runaway effects in nature." Exactly. And in particular, the earth's climate system has not been shown to run away over its 4+ billion year history, and this despite receiving some staggering inputs in the form of meteor/asteroid collisions, VEI level 8+ volcanic eruptions, great ice ages, geologic catastrophes related to plate tectonics, and almost certainly the effects of a Nova or Super Nova explosion in its general stellar neigborhood.
So why are the AGW proponents proposing models of the climate system that run away in the presence of this human CO2 input? Is that not what this "tipping point" scare stuff is all about, climate runaway? More than this, why are AGW alarmists making dire predictions of catastrophe based on the predictions of climate models, not one of which can correctly regress the known data sets, and no two of which agree with each other?
to wit: "Well, what about some 20 greenhouse climate models, all predicting warming — all the way to 11.5 C from as low as 1.4 C, for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Yet no one can tell us which of these models is correct — if any. And none of these models can explain why the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975 — without special assumptions. In any case, model results are never evidence. Only actual observations count."
The above statement was surely true in 2000 when it was made. One would think that 7 years of scientific endeavor might have produced some greater consistency amongst these models. Prove it false today. Show me two independent models that give identical results over all known data sets. Link or slink.
Great post, NL207.
May 22, 2007 - 20:41 ET by dahliatraversGreat post, NL207.
Belag, my mistake. Your or
May 20, 2007 - 20:54 ET by MilesDBelag, my mistake. Your original question was - have I looked at the other side's perspective on water vapor.
By "other side" I thought you refering to IPCC's analysis, and I didn't even look at the site you displayed! So sorry.
What I have written above is (in a somewhat different configuration) EXACTLY what IPCC had presented in the 2000 (1) analyses. That model does predict a 3x increase in temperature change over what was measured.
They modified it for (sulphate) aerosol, which is a difficult thing to get one's arms around., to account for the discrepancy.
(What I went through above is about 100 pages worth of IPCC stuff.)
Well, there you are. I went through an analysis looking at the variables separately, and then their interactions, and I went through what the IPCC had.
Clearly, I have already convinced myself that my analysis is right. I hope others will take a look at it independlently too, and judge for themselves
IPCC and analysis
May 20, 2007 - 21:19 ET by belagIf I may, here's my view. You seem to have done some analysis. You think something's amiss. There can be at least two possibilities
a) Your analysis is correct and the theory is missing something
b) Your understanding of the theory is missing something.
If you want to discuss the analysis, I'll try to respond.
Miles,It seems that there is
May 20, 2007 - 21:36 ET by botgMiles,
It seems that there is continual re-hashing of the same ideas and sites and data. Might i suggest that you (as you are more qualified than say me) put up a forum topic and cover the info. That way it is in one spot and easily referenced a month from now when someone new shows up? Free Stinker has done a couple of Forums like this.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Good point, brother
May 20, 2007 - 21:42 ET by MilesDGood point, brother
If I may, you may here's my
May 20, 2007 - 21:40 ET by MilesDIf I may, you may here's my view. You seem to have done some analysis. yes much You
think something's amiss I think something is wrong with the IPCC analysis, yes. There can be at least two possibilities
a) Your analysis is correct and the theory is missing something Meaning the IPCC theory yes indeed yes yes yes indeed and that something is the nonlinear dependence between the forcing and feedback! And that is not something that can be accounted for by taking the model they had! The thing has to be taken apart and looked at quite differently to account for it correctly!
b) Your understanding of the theory is missing something. My understanding of the IPCC theory may be missing something, possible, but I don't know if likely, if I can transform the model to the reciprocal domain to produce their result
If you want to discuss the analysis, I'll try to respond.
Percentage of greenhouse gas concentrations
May 20, 2007 - 18:09 ET by belag(To dahliatravers)
Let's assume your number 5.53% for the moment.
The point is precisely that you ought not to include water vapour in the calculation of total greenhouse gases. Because not all greenhouse gases are the same.
Water vapour is called a "feedback" because it's life period is in the the weeks instead of decades in the case of CO2. So, if you try to change water vapour directly, it would come back to it's "appropriate" level in a few weeks.
However if you change CO2 level, it would change the "appropriate water vapour level" itself, and then water vapour can change.
Hope this helps.
No, it doesn't. I stand by
May 20, 2007 - 21:47 ET by dahliatraversNo, it doesn't. I stand by my main point: man's contribution of CO2, even at 5.53%, is not overwhelming evidence for AGW. Further, I associate myself with all remarks that MilesD has made on this thread.
CO2 and water vapour
May 21, 2007 - 02:20 ET by belagThere are two issues here.:
a) Water vapour vs CO2: Are you satisfied with my explanation of why water vapour is not directly responsible for GW?
b) The amount of CO2: May I ask you where you got the 5.53% figure? And 5.53% of what?
As regarding Miles, if he can share his analysis with me, I can respond. Otherwise, I have no idea what he's talking about.
Water vapor is the grand dadd
May 21, 2007 - 08:08 ET by dahliatraversWater vapor is the grand daddy of greenhouse gases. I was assuming that the amount of water vapor was stable at all times and this, of course, is wrong. All of the other greenhouse gases act to increase or decrease water vapor, making the planet warmer or cooler. One of the tenets of AGW is that man is making more water vapor by excessively adding to greenhouse gases.
That leads us to b). Man "creates" 5.53% of greenhouse gases on this planet if water vapor is excluded from the calculation. If water vapor is included in the calculation, man "creates" only .28% (less than one third of one percent; not worth talking about) of greenhouse gases. It should be noted that even at the higher figure of 5.53%, man is by far the smallest contributor of greenhouse gases.
The source of my statistics is here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Water vapour
May 22, 2007 - 01:42 ET by belagRegarding b)
Let's look at the website you gave. I couldn't find the table in the website anywhere. They've totally made it up. The link provided in the reference (reference 1) shows a very different picture.
CO2: Pre-1750 concentration: 280ppm
Current concentration: 377.3ppm
That doesn't seem like 5% increase.
Regarding a)
About water vapour. It repeats the same view of the water vapour.
I'll
state my point yet again about water vapour. It's hard to directly
modify water vapour. You can only change it (and it does change in the
AGW models - indirectly) by changing CO2 and other gases. Therefore the
0.28% figure there is meaningless - even assuming the 5% figure, which is incorrect anyway.
The .28% figure is not contin
May 22, 2007 - 06:42 ET by dahliatraversThe .28% figure is not contingent on the 5.53% figure. It's an either/or situation.
I wasn't aware that the percentage of greenhouse gases that man contributes was in contention. How much do you say it is, belag?
< Edit: and the 5.53% has nothing to do with the increase of CO2 from 1750 to now. It is the percentage of greenhouse gas that man currently "generates" if water vapor is not factored in. The other 94% is generated by nature - again excluding water vapor. >
< Second Edit: Your comment about b) is completely wrong, belag. It is all clearly laid out on that website, exactly as I said. Below is the link again. I look forward to hearing from you the percentage of greenhouse gases that man contributes. >
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Water vapour, CO2 and the website
May 22, 2007 - 22:44 ET by belagLet's look at b) first.
The table which they give is nowhere to be found in the reference which they give. They've simply made it up. What I was quoting was the table which the reference did give.
Regarding a)
The essential question seems to be: do you include water vapour or not? And my view (which I justified, you can be the judge) is that water vapour ought not to be included, because it works differently.
Here is the (transformed) o
May 22, 2007 - 23:35 ET by MilesDHere is the (transformed) output of the single feedback loop amplifier
KG(s)T(s)/[1 + KG(s)F(s)]
where KG(s) is the forcing with a gain K, T(s) is the input, and F(s) is the feedback.
Now as before, F = -0.5, and as NL correctly says, they choose K=1 (or nearly)
And question to Mr Belag
What do they choose G(s) to be??
When you know what it is, come back and show how this is stable in finite time t=1/s
And how does water vapor bloc
May 22, 2007 - 23:41 ET by NL207And how does water vapor block the escape of IR radiation back into space differently than CO2?
The ONLY difference in the IR blocking of CO2 and H2O are the particular wavelengths each blocks. The spectra are not identical in the IR band.
The residence time of each H2O molecule in the atmosphere is of no relevance to the mechanism. Whether molecule number 92598187835293 or molecule number 22453947652390 absorbs an IR photon and re-emits back towards the ground is totally irrelevant. The net effect is the same. One IR photon has been prevented from escaping the Earth's atmosphere.
You are full of garbage on this one, belag , as are your associates at RealClimate. The real reason you scaremongers don't want to tell ordinary people that water vapour is at least 90% of the greenhouse effect is that fact undermines the urgency of your case about CO2. Most folks are going to yawn and ask, "So what's the big deal? We can't do anything about water anyway. Why are you wasting our time with this?" Such is human psychology.
Speaking of RealClimate .... what DOES your site say about the percentage of the greenhouse effect water vapor conributes. At least 5 separate sources have been cited in his thread that place that contribution at more than 90%. What do the "real" experts claim this is? Care to post a link? If not, slink.
NLLink or slinki love itSupre
May 22, 2007 - 23:45 ET by botgNL
Link or slink
i love it
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I can't take credit for that
May 23, 2007 - 00:08 ET by NL207I can't take credit for that line. It is first attributed on this site to MassLiberal, now banned. I considered him to be the best lib debater we ever faced here. He had some kind of mental/emotional meltdown where he started acting like George Carlin in a nightclub act, just as foul mouthed and offensive, but not as funny. He got tossed for that. A shame really. Before that, he had been a really clean debate. I valued him as target practice! :) I actually wish NB would invite him back on the condition he not do the Carlin thing again.
Water vapour and civility
May 23, 2007 - 00:25 ET by belagFirst of all, I'd request you to show a little civility. You've called me names before, I certainly don't like it. If you believe I'm full of bullshit, then by all means ignore me. If we're going to have a discourse, it better be a civil one.
The point about water vapour has nothing to do with whether it traps IR or not. Let me first ask you. Have you looked at the explanation?
If you'd look at the explanation, it explains that water vapour is indeed present in the models, but as a "feedback" not a "forcing". The point being, water vapour has a very small life period (of the order of a few weeks). If you change the water vapour level artificially, it'd regain the original level in a short time.
If you change CO2 level, it takes a much longer time (decades) for it to stabilize. In the meantime, the indirect effect heats up the atmosphere and puts more water vapour into it, which acts as a feedback.
If you look at the link, it states how much effect water vapour has (around 66-85%). There's a perfectly good reason why it's not talked about as much as CO2 because of the above reason. It has nothing to do with human psychology.
The point of this is: if you disagree with the explanation (and it's certainly your right to do so), why? What makes you think it's bullshit? But at least read it.
go way way down to the end
May 23, 2007 - 01:30 ET by MilesDgo way way down to the end
NL207, if this is not the ori
May 18, 2007 - 17:43 ET by dahliatraversNL207, if this is not the original document you were thinking of, the bibliography at the end may list it.
According to this document, greenhouse gases contributed by man are 0.28% (less than one third of one percent) if water vapor is taken into account; 5.53% if not.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
fairly cool page D ( :{o
May 18, 2007 - 23:29 ET by botgfairly cool page D ( :{o)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Good grief. The author give
May 19, 2007 - 00:47 ET by NL207Good grief. The author gives four references for the 95% number, all of them potenially authoritative and one of them is Richard Lindzen. None of them are Dr. Sobel.
Take your pick. You can quote the 95% value for the contribution of water vapor to greenhouse effect and cite any of these sources.
Yea!Side note. Richard Lind
May 19, 2007 - 03:36 ET by dahliatraversYea!
Side note. Richard Lindzen:
MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not. ....
He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
Here is the (transformed)
May 22, 2007 - 00:09 ET by MilesDHere is the (transformed) output of the single feedback loop amplifier
KG(s)T(s)/[1 + KG(s)F(s)]
where KG(s) is the forcing with a gain K, T(s) is the input, and F(s) is the feedback.
Now as before, F = -0.5, and as NL correctly says, they choose K=1 (or nearly)
And question to Mr Belag
What do they choose G(s) to be??
When you know what it is, come back and show how this is stable in finite time t=1/s
Have I told you lately that I
May 18, 2007 - 18:11 ET by kathleenirishHave I told you lately that I really appreciate your postings here? Thanks.
" 'Fred's Slacks' is a winner!!"
Dahlia is Great!
May 21, 2007 - 01:22 ET by MilesDDahlia is Great!
Heavens. Your check is in the
May 22, 2007 - 20:40 ET by dahliatraversHeavens. Your check is in the mail, Miles.
I'm still waiting for algore'
May 18, 2007 - 15:46 ET by SouthJersey1953I'm still waiting for algore's explanation on why the temperatures are increasing on Mars and Neptune at about the same rate as Earth.....
No RINOs in '08 - Vote for a true conservative!
if ya 'all are waiting for th
May 18, 2007 - 16:19 ET by pepsiman127if ya 'all are waiting for the goricle and friends to say "damn...we've been disproved" or even agree to an honest debate im afraid that will never happen. cuz that would require gore to stop fleecing his own kind with his carbon offset scam...
First the Czech President, no
May 18, 2007 - 16:21 ET by LeonFirst the Czech President, now a New Zealand Weatherman!
Uh-oh Libbies, the anti-global warming movement is really starting to pick up steam!
Let's get you updated, Leon.h
May 18, 2007 - 18:24 ET by dahliatraversLet's get you updated, Leon.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
First Al Gore, then some co
May 18, 2007 - 19:53 ET by Jack BauerFirst Al Gore, then some comdian's ex-model wife, then some lame female "rock star" with personal buttal-area hygiene problems.
Wow. Those manmade global warming nuts sure pack an intellectual punch.
Algore is going to end up bei
May 18, 2007 - 16:22 ET by bigtimerAlgore is going to end up being dust in the GW wind before this is all over.
The silly big oaf.
I really hope Albert doesn'
May 18, 2007 - 18:03 ET by MilesDI hope Albert doesn't start mouthing off about traitors and killers who are deniers before he's dust.
That would only show how small he really is
CNN asks if Al Gore will save us all
May 22, 2007 - 08:24 ET by SportPoliticsI was watching Ted Turner's commie light channel CNN this morning, and there was a CNN commercial for one of their upcoming shows:
Global Warming, Al Gore's fan's want him to run for President, will "AL GORE SAVE US ALL ?"
Find out tonight on Larry King, 8pm.
___________________________________
Yes, it was just amazing. Al Gore needs to save us all now. He must run and become President or we all die from global warming. Watch Larry King tonight at 8pm to find out if you live or die....
LOL - Oh, I hate to say it, but I don't want to miss this... it might be more than hilarious.
I've always loved New Zeala
May 18, 2007 - 16:33 ET by AJI've always loved New Zealand... now I have a reason to love it even more.
Dear Doctor Auer,In regards t
May 18, 2007 - 16:56 ET by MikeBDear Doctor Auer,
In regards to the facts you have presented in the global warming/global climate change debate that are contrary to what I've been spewing for years: YA, YA, YA, MY FINGERS ARE IN MY EARS AND I CAN'T HEAR YOU. THE DEBATE IS OVER. YA, YA, YA!
Sincerely,
Algore
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan