It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Yet Again, I might add. You got schooled on that other thread by Mel too huh!, On exactly the same topic!
Not a quick learner are we.
God Bless 'em.
Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by melatonin
mel, I've got another one to add to our ever-growing climate denier mental problem scrapbook: Stockholm Syndrome.
If it's not faster in higher levels of the troposphere (=hotspot + negative feedback), then it will be either equal rate (= no feedback) or slower (= positive feedback)
Nathan predicts even more warming than the consensus, so he seems to be an 'alarmist', lol.
If we don't have the third, then we have the first or second. The argument is that the hot-spot (the third) is not occurring, thus there is no bias towards warming high in the tropics. The surface temperature data shows warming in the tropics of around 0.15'C per decade (GISS, Hadley, NOAA etc).
In the second we have a bias to warming at the surface which produces a positive feedback (enhances forcing). In the last we have bias to warming high in the troposphere, which produces a negative feedback (decreases forcing).
The IPCC used the CO2 forcing of 3.71 W/m2. They multiply this by a feedback factor of 3.08, which boosts the total forcing due to CO2 to 11.4 W/m2. Monckton’s summary shows that 76% of this feedback factor is due to clouds and water vapour (with lapse rate change).
But both of these feedbacks are the wrong sign! Roy Spencer shows that clouds cause a negative feedback, not positive, based on satellite data. He shows that modeller have interpreted cloud changes as a feedback, instead of a cause of temperature change. This reversal of cause and effect makes cloud seem like a positive feedback, when they actually cause a negative feedback. But more importantly, the IPCC assumes that water vapour causes the largest positive feedback, but the Hartcode simulation runs using the NOAA water humidity data shows that water vapour causes a large negative feedback. You have seen my graph of relative humidity before which is linked here.
All climate models assume that relative humidity remains approximately constant with global warming. So if CO2 initially causes a small warming, this causes an increase in water content in the models, resulting is a large positive feedback But the data shows a 21% drop of relative humidity at about 9 km altitude, just where the predicted hot spot is missing, directly contradicting the models.
The Hartcode simulation makes no assumptions of how the greenhouse effect works, or how much temperatures changes with optical depth changes. (Optical depth is related the surface radiation flux Su by Su = OLR(1+tau +exp(-tau))/2, where tau = optical depth). Here is a graph showing the optical depth changes over the last 60 years (water vapour and CO2), and the change due to CO2 only.
Look at the pink curve, CO2 only. This is with water vapour held constant and CO2 only changing. The trend (orange line) shows an increase of 1.152 10-4 X 60 years = +0.0069, or about +0.37% in 60 years, confirming our belief the CO2 has a tiny direct effect on temperature.
The blue curve shows the optical depth including CO2 and water vapour. Note that water vapour varies much more that CO2. But instead of causing a huge positive feedback, water caused a strong negative feedback, and reduced the optical depth trend (green line) to 2.58 10-5 X 60 years = + 0.0015, or about 0.083% in 60 years. This means that water vapour has offset 78% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 change over the last 60 years. This is very significant! Note also that there has been a dramatic drop in water vapour at all altitudes in 2008, which is not included in the above calculations. I do recognize that the early NOAA data might be less accurate than more recent data, but this is what the data shows.
This data supports Miskowski’s theory of the greenhouse effect. Miskolcki shows the standard theory uses inappropriate boundary conditions. When real boundary conditions are used, he shows that the atmosphere maintains a saturated greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. I encourage you to review this article, based on a draft by Dr. Noor van Andel. In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models fail: 1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive feedback, 2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback. See PDF here.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
The hotspot is meant to compare atmospheric temperature trends with surface trends (changes in the lapse rate). As far as my limited capacities are able to judge the hotspot in the models (anthropogenically produced or not) is meant to appear due to evaporation increasing and dumping more latent heat into the atmosphere. By suggesting that there is no hotspot I am suggesting that there has been no considerable change in the lapse rate since the surface and temperature trends have remained more or less same.
Check out the IPCC graph. Which feedback has the greatest hypothetical influence? Would that be water vapour on its own, or water vapour pegged back by the lapse rate negative feedback?
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.
There is a lot of aid money to be had in claiming your country is at risk of a natural disaster:
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
some 35 years.