Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

None of this really matters in the end. The Ice age is coming, nothing will stop it. All of this will be MOOT. People will be wishing to go back to the time when we were worrying about "global warming"

Warming=Ice Age and it's not picky on who or how the warming was caused!

The water vapor research is very interesting. Is earth's moisture evaporating at a faster rate? I'm very curious about those sink holes.

In someone else's words:

Another early morning ride through the Illinois countryside. I would ride through the water vapor hugging the ground, and the dew would collect on my face. Enough would collect to form drops that would then roll down my face like tears.

Yesterday, while driving, I noticed an entire row of Blue Spruce's dying. What a shame.

The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate.climateprogress.org...

Originally posted by favouriteslave
None of this really matters in the end. The Ice age is coming, nothing will stop it. All of this will be MOOT. People will be wishing to go back to the time when we were worrying about "global warming"

Warming=Ice Age and it's not picky on who or how the warming was caused!

I assume you're referring to the thermohaline circulation shutdown...

Regardless of the possibility of such a shutdown... it is by no means guaranteed, nor would it result in an ice-age. Instead it would likely result in a new global climate after a few decades and regional cooling (possibly) in the North Atlantic/Nordic countries. Global warming would still continue in the face of a shutdown. Even so, the chance of a shutdown only becomes likely after about a century from now IF we continue our current trends. Although it is relatively unlikely that we will see such a shutdown (esp. within our lifetimes), it certainly must be taken into account as a serious climate-change risk of continuing our use of fossil fuels and contributions to global warming.

As for an ice age- the reality is, scientists do not expect another ice-age for THOUSANDS OF YEARS from now.

Please see these links:

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.stabilisation2005.com...

We now address the question: ‘How likely is a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation?’ For the base-case CO2 emission from 2005 to 2205 and ! T2x = 3°C, the likelihood of a THC shutdown obtained over the uniform probability distributions for K, ! and ! T c rises monotonically to 4 in 10 in 2100 and 65 in 100 in 2200.

faculty.washington.edu...

www.ucsusa.org...

You are joking? The hotspot is not a specific consequence of CO2. That is a pure non-sequitor. You've had this outlined twice to you now - once by myself in t'other thread and by someone in this thread: it is a result of the lapse rate and a consequence of all form of warming.

Looky here. The CCSP are the ones who tell us that the hotspot is only visible under greenhouse gases. I've repeatedly said, on multiple occasions throughout this thread that other warming not engendered by CO2 could probably create a hotspot, but that isn't what the CCSP presents in the PCM simulations. See the pics below.


Notice how the hotspot is only, I repeat, only, visible under greenhouse gases, that includes CO2, water vapour and methane. You're making out like I'm the one who's making this claim, when I'm not, it's the CCSP (your team). Regardless of what causes the hotspot though really doesn't matter, because it's still not detectable with radiosondes. You've made it clear that you think windshear is probably more reliable than thermometers and satellites that circle the planet 24/7, whereas I think the modus operandi behind using windshear to measure temperature is probably something we should be more skeptical of. We clearly won't agree on this subject anyhow, so let's just leave it at that, eh?

Just read Table 1 of the paper. Even most of the individual models are significantly different from the model ensemble mean data they use.

Eh? McKitrick used exactly the same model simulations that Santer used. What do you mean the "individual models are significantly different from the model ensemble data?" And Santer wasn't exactly forthcoming in providing the necessary information to McKitrick to assist him in carrying out his research. McIntyre had to issue FOIA requests to the NOAA.

I doubt they will be found to have exposed much apart from their own inability to add substantially to the literature yet again.

I don't think that's necessarily fair. He dispatched the Hockey Stick brilliantly.

Likely 3. But it's entirely fair to expect the data to have real issues - they are already known to have biases, and we've been here a number of times already - the data has tended to be corrected towards the models (see the Christy UAH debacle from several years ago).

If I had to choose between real-world measurements by real-world equipment and a bunch of computer models I would choose the real-world equipment any day. Clearly, you have more faith in the models; models which even Trenberth admitted were not indented to be predictions but were designed to cover a range of possibilities and that they were only meant to be what-if-scenarios. The problem with computer models, is just that; they're computer models, nothing more, nothing less, and they can be tweaked any which way to yield the desired results and they are not even independently audited. Real-world equipment (ie thermometers and satellites) will always trump computer models as evidence.

lol, the conversion is just a simple equation - the thermal wind equation. The answer to your question is in the abstract I posted.

How do you know if this equation is accurate if it doesn't replicate what real-world equipment is measuring? Obviously, there's a flaw in the equation somewhere.

Balloons launched into the atmosphere and satellites measuring radiance aren't exactly sticking a thermometer up someone's butt (or even measuring at a surface weather station).

Very nice.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Notice how the hotspot is only, I repeat, only, visible under greenhouse gases, that includes CO2, water vapour and methane. You're making out like I'm the one who's making this claim, when I'm not, it's the CCSP (your team).

I'm sure someone has already shown you that when models are forced significantly with solar, they produce a comparable hotspot to GHGs. Same/similar vertical thermal profiles are here:

www.realclimate.org...

ABE: yeah, MCsquared showed you this earlier here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you can't digest this stuff when it's clearly presented to you, is there any point even bothering? You don't seem interested in understanding the issues at all...you just come across as another blow-hard.

I can't be bothered hunting down that figure that the CCSP, but I'm sure I'd find that it's related to actual forcings used in GCMs. If solar forcing in the models is constant between 1958 and whatever the end-point was, of course it won't show a hotspot! Duh...

Regardless of what causes the hotspot though really doesn't matter, because it's still not detectable with radiosondes. You've made it clear that you think windshear is probably more reliable than thermometers and satellites that circle the planet 24/7, whereas I think the modus operandi behind using windshear to measure temperature is probably something we should be more skeptical of. We clearly won't agree on this subject anyhow, so let's just leave it at that, eh?

I think wind-shear measurements are certainly more reliable than old-skool radiosonde temperature data - the homogenised data is likely an improvement.

Eh? McKitrick used exactly the same model simulations that Santer used. What do you mean the "individual models are significantly different from the model ensemble data?" And Santer wasn't exactly forthcoming in providing the necessary information to McKitrick to assist him in carrying out his research. McIntyre had to issue FOIA requests to the NOAA.

I think McIntyre would issue FOIA requests against his mother if he could.

McKitrick actually used more models than Santer (which is an issue in itself - I can explain tomorrow if you want me to - too tired, need sleep). And McKitrick et al. have barely described and justified their methods. If you can't understand the simple comment I made about models vs. ensemble in their study, I doubt you'll grasp the issues.

They take a series of model runs and from them produce grand mean ensemble with an associated error. Most of the models are significantly different than their ensemble mean! So much like the satellites disagree with themselves and most observations with the model ensemble in their data, even most of the bleedin' models disagree with their ensemble data - it shows that their methods are naff (the models are not even consistent with the models - get it?). When we look at individual models, the observations are shown to be pretty consistent, but their mean ensemble data is way too restrictive - the same issue was found in the Douglass paper. I show the problem fairly clearly in the plot I made - I know you like pictures

I don't think that's necessarily fair. He dispatched the Hockey Stick brilliantly.

Only in his dreams.

If I had to choose between real-world measurements by real-world equipment and a bunch of computer models I would choose the real-world equipment any day. Clearly, you have more faith in the models; models which even Trenberth admitted were not indented to be predictions but were designed to cover a range of possibilities and that they were only meant to be what-if-scenarios. The problem with computer models, is just that; they're computer models, nothing more, nothing less, and they can be tweaked any which way to yield the desired results and they are not even independently audited. Real-world equipment (ie thermometers and satellites) will always trump computer models as evidence.

1. We know the data has real problems
2. We've been in this exact situation before.

Just because I think in this case the data is highly questionable, this doesn't apply to all.

How do you know if this equation is accurate if it doesn't replicate what real-world equipment is measuring? Obviously, there's a flaw in the equation somewhere.

Wut? So the basic physics is wrong? lol

Even when it has long been known that radiosonde temp measures are a bit crap?

Balloons launched into the atmosphere and satellites measuring radiance aren't exactly sticking a thermometer up someone's butt (or even measuring at a surface weather station).

Very nice.

Yeah, gets the point across. Even measuring air temperature outside your front door is a bit more complicated than holding a thermometer in the air. For example, is it in sunlight? Is wind cooling it? etc etc.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by melatonin]

I'm sure someone has already shown you that when models are forced significantly with solar, they produce a comparable hotspot to GHGs. Same/similar vertical thermal profiles are here

Pointless. The IPCC tell us it is beyond doubt that the last 50 years of warming has been due to CO2. So, this is really a moot point. Why even bring it up? It's a non-issue.

think McIntyre would issue FOIA requests against his mother if he could.

Why you guys don't think it's suspicious that these scientists aren't releasing their raw data is beyond comprehension.

"We requested this data from S08 lead author Santer, who categorically refused to provide it (see www.climateaudit.org...) Instead of supplying what would be at most 1 MB or so of monthly data collated by specialists as part of their research work, Santer directed us to the terabytes of archived PCMDI data and challenged us to reproduce their series from scratch. Apart from the pointless and potentially large time cost imposed by this refusal, the task of aggregating PCMDI data with which we are unfamiliar would create the risk of introducing irrelevant collation errors or mismatched averaging steps, leading to superfluous controversy should our results not replicate theirs" -- Mclntrye.

We know the data has real problems.

Replace the word 'know' with 'think'.

Wut? So the basic physics is wrong?

Something's wrong, whatever it is.

They take a series of model runs and from them produce grand mean ensemble with an associated error. Most of the models are significantly different than their ensemble mean! So much like the satellites disagree with themselves and most do with the model ensemble, even most of the models disagree with their ensemble - it shows that their methods are naff.

The satellites disagree with themselves, but at the same time, they still don't agree with the models. Anyway, you might need to elaborate on how the "models disagree with their ensemble" proves the methods are "naff?" I'm afraid you've lost me here.

I think wind-shear measurements are certainly more reliable than old-skool radiosonde temperature data - the homogenised data is likely an improvement.

Radiosondes are just thermometers attached to balloons. By saying you don't think radiosondes are reliable you're saying you don't think thermometers are reliable. If we can't trust the simple measurements of thermometers and satellites then what can we trust?

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D

I'm sure someone has already shown you that when models are forced significantly with solar, they produce a comparable hotspot to GHGs. Same/similar vertical thermal profiles are here

Pointless. The IPCC tell us it is beyond doubt that the last 50 years of warming has been due to CO2. So, this is really a moot point. Why even bring it up? It's a non-issue.

You're being disingeuous here, nathan.

Your problem is that you don't understand half the stuff your reading and posting on this issue. The CCSP profiles are for model runs between 1958 and 1999. In models (and observations) solar effects have been pretty stable (or even falling in obs) during that period, so of course that data won't show a tropospheric hotspot (it is a consequence of +ve forcing). The question was whether a hotspot is specific to CO2/GHGs (which was the basis of your logical fallacy).

So, indeed, why the hell did you bring up the CCSP model runs? Because they are a non-issue.

Why you guys don't think it's suspicious that these scientists aren't releasing their raw data is beyond comprehension.

I'm sure they do release raw data when they can and need to. McIntyre is just a whiner well-known for crying wolf about this.

"We requested this data from S08 lead author Santer, who categorically refused to provide it (see www.climateaudit.org...) Instead of supplying what would be at most 1 MB or so of monthly data collated by specialists as part of their research work, Santer directed us to the terabytes of archived PCMDI data and challenged us to reproduce their series from scratch. Apart from the pointless and potentially large time cost imposed by this refusal, the task of aggregating PCMDI data with which we are unfamiliar would create the risk of introducing irrelevant collation errors or mismatched averaging steps, leading to superfluous controversy should our results not replicate theirs" -- Mclntrye.

Awww, so ickle McIntyre wasn't prepared to do the work. He expected working scientists to hold his hand and walk him through it. Santer pointed him to the raw data and told him to do his own analysis - an actual replication.

I don't blame them. They are NOT McIntyre's personal data repository. The raw data was easily available, he was just too goddam lazy to use it.

We know the data has real problems.

Replace the word 'know' with 'think'.

No, when we observe that changes in design of radiosonde leads to changes in the order of 1-3'C, we know the data has problems.

Wut? So the basic physics is wrong?

Something's wrong, whatever it is.

We know the data has problems. It's been known for years. Your refusal to accept that well-established fact doesn't negate the evidence showing the problems.

The satellites disagree with themselves, but at the same time, they still don't agree with the models. Anyway, you might need to elaborate on how the "models disagree with their ensemble" proves the methods are "naff?" I'm afraid you've lost me here.

lol.

You take a series of models and produce a summary ensemble with a mean trend and associated error. Then they perform their statistics - most of the models are shown to be significantly different from the summary ensemble using their statistical tests. It's in Table 1 of their paper.

That is not useful. If the majority of individual models used to form the ensemble data can't agree with the ensemble, what does it matter that the observations can't? It's a meaningless analysis.

Think of it like taking a bunch of deniers and measuring their self-reported IQ to produce a mean value with associated error. The self-reported mean of the data is 170 and it has little error bars that show a range +/- this mean. In McIntyre's world of stats, it's entirely fine if the vast majority (about 90%, IIRC) of the individual deniers are not consistent with their own summary data.

Radiosondes are just thermometers attached to balloons. By saying you don't think radiosondes are reliable you're saying you don't think thermometers are reliable. If we can't trust the simple measurements of thermometers and satellites then what can we trust?

We know that the radiosonde thermometer data is not entirely reliable. It has major problems with heterogeneity. It's well-known. Studies have been examining this for years.

Their are two major satellite temperature sets. They don't agree with each other in many instances.

So, trying to use this circular discussion for some use:

The point is that it's pretty hard to make any firm conclusions about the tropospheric hotspot in the tropics either way - the data is pretty poor. But efforts to improve both radiosondes (see McCarthy et al. 2009) and satellite data (see Zou and Wang, 2009) are ongoing. Moreover, satellite and radiosonde systems were not designed to be used for long-term trend analysis; whereas model data was not designed to be used for short-term trend analysis.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by melatonin]

To everybody on this thread except Nathan:

A lot of the contention throughout this discussion has been Nathan's sources. And it's not like I need to tell the rest of you guys what a god awful piece of crap they are...but if there's any last shred of credibility to Joanne Nova and her motives - I believe it has been firmly OBLITERATED in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Enjoy!

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by Le Colonel
reply to post by C0bzz

 

your graph does not show enough data. Why cant the Earth heat up, um, every 10,000 years or so..

your little graph of 40 years well shows, 40 years of data.. YOU are saying cause the world heating up in your life time, that it will just continue and continue until we all cook?

it will go back down, and when it does, every person like you will start to say or scream in some cases, GLOBAL COOLING.. oh noos :0

I thought people like you could only be poorly educated rednecks?

This is simply an error of logic. The fact that lightning strikes caused bushfires in the distant past, and continue to do so today, does not imply that arsonists never cause bushfires. Also, I take this as an acceptance that total solar irradiate is not rising temperature? It's very difficult to correlate the temperature changes we are seeing today with any factor except rising CO2 concentrations from human activity...

(also, Earth is not Mars)

I am not sure why you are allowed to insult ppl on here and other
ppl get their posts pulled.

As to your human caused global warming theory I will refer
you to the scientists being caught LYING about charts and
graphs they put out.

They called it climategate.

I will also refer to to several top tier scientists that have proven
beyond a SHADOW of a doubt that they lied about CO2 a GREAT deal.

Google Video Link

Odds are pretty good that you or someone in your circle of friends
and family is involved in this giant scam.

You're being disingenuous here, Nathan.

Not at all. And I understand it perfectly. The AGW theory states that an increase in water vapour should expand the lower troposphere, pushing it into the upper colder atmosphere creating a hotspot, mainly about 8-12km above the tropics, where evaporation rates occur the fastest and any extra water vapour would have the biggest effect. The IPCC call it "water vapour feedback", see Chapter 8, page 631 for a full description or read Hansen et al 1985. The extra water vapour should have created the hotspot between 1958-1999 as posited in the PCM models, demonstrably, though, no hotspot has been found, which means there is no feedback amplification from water vapour. In fact, humidity levels have fallen (see Douglass and Paltridge), which shows water vapour actually causes a negative feedback.

No, when we observe that changes in design of radiosonde leads to changes in the order of 1-3'C, we know the data has problems.

Wow, really? Design in radiosondes lead to discrepancies in the magnitude of 1-3 degrees? I've never heard anything of the sort. Here's an extract taken from Wikipedia about radiosondes.

"Worldwide there are more than 800 radiosonde launch sites. Most countries share data with the rest of the world through international agreements. Nearly all routine radiosonde launches occur 45 minutes before the official observation time of 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC, so as to provide an instantaneous snapshot of the atmosphere. This is especially important for numerical modeling. In the United States the National Weather Service is tasked with providing timely upper-air observations for use in weather forecasting, severe weather watches and warnings, and atmospheric research. The National Weather Service launches radiosondes from 92 stations in North America and the Pacific Islands twice daily. It also supports the operation of 10 radiosonde sites in the Caribbean." -- en.wikipedia.org...

If they were so unreliable do you really think the National Weather Service would launch radiosondes from 92 stations every single day, if, as you say, they are so notoriously unreliable? Once again, radiosondes are specifically designed to measure temperature; to assume that 20 years of radiosonde measurements could be all so egregiously flawed is wishful thinking taken to the extreme. Plus, as aforementioned, the radiosonde data is in substantial agreement with the UAH and ERBE satellite data. If anyone here is being disingenuous, it's you. Here's a good paper by David Evans if anyone is interested in learning more about the missing hotspot and its importance in falsifying AGW. sciencespeak.com...

True, but I'd like to see something tangible. Haven't seen anything thus far.
You take a series of models and produce a summary ensemble with a mean trend and associated error. Then they perform their statistics - most of the models are shown to be significantly different from the summary ensemble using their statistical tests. It's in Table 1 of their paper.

Pah. They use exactly the same models as Santer. Either way, regardless of the quibbles you have with their studies and irrationally unfounded distrust towards McIntyre, it doesn't change the fact that the raw radiosonde data that came in 10 years ago still doesn't the support the climate models' suppositions.

We know that the radiosonde thermometer data is not entirely reliable. It has major problems with heterogeneity. It's well-known. Studies have been examining this for years.

The lack of homogeneity isn't exactly surprising in an ever-changing, multifaceted climate, in fact, it's utterly predictable; no two sets of data are ever going to be completely homogenized. All told.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Another blow for the man-made global warming fanatics

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


No no no no...

Why don't you go back and read the posts in this thread. The deniers have been debunked over and over. And LINDZEN? You gotta be kidding me... nobody takes that guy seriously, he's PAID OFF by industry.

The point is that the instrumentation on weather balloons is adequate for its primary purpose---weather prediction. It was not designed with accurate first-principles calibration to measure decades-long trends (they'd be far too expensive to be expendable as they are) where you need to guarantee absolute calibration against standards with little systematic drift over 40 years.

The construction of the devices change as well as data collection and evaluation procedures.

Read the introduction to the paper for references to history of this problem.

camels.metoffice.gov.uk...

So, no it isn't at all as simple as you imagine.

And what about all the other 20 papers on this thread previously showing positive climate feedback, not to mention basic physics?

Do you think that generally a warmer atmosphere will have LESS absolute humidity? Globally? If your interpretation of one particular set of results lead to a contradiction of sound physical principles (and many other results) , then you ought to reconsider that interpretation.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by mbkennel]

reply to post by mbkennel

It was not designed with accurate first-principles calibration to measure decades-long trends (they'd be far too expensive to be expendable as they are) where you need to guarantee absolute calibration against standards with little systematic drift over 40 years.

Dude, weather balloons are designed to measure the temperature and humidity in the troposphere and upper atmosphere. That is why they were created and that is why they exist - for those purposes... inter alia.

Here's a paragraph from NASA's website concerning the accuracy of radiosondes over several different models in 1980.

"1989 tests of several models of radiosondes used in the United States in the 1980's showed pressure measured to an accuracy of about +/- 2mb, temperature measured to an accuracy of +/-0.3 degrees Celsius, and relative humidity to an accuracy of +/- 2 percent. (Elliott and Gaffen 1991)" -- NASA. Link.

The hotspot should be at least 0.6 degrees Celsius and as NASA says the studies show that several different models of radiosondes can measure temperature to an accuracy of +/-0.3 degrees Celsius, that's easily good enough to be able to detect the hotspot - and that was way back in 1980 when radiosondes were inchoate. I'll concede, there's a (slim) possibility that one may have missed the hotspot, but literally hundreds over a 20-year timeframe, that's seriously grasping at straws. Who's in denial here? The person who thinks that thermometer sensors on weather balloons can't accurately measure the temperature of the atmosphere (even though they were designed to do so), or the person who thinks a computer algorithm that coverts wind data to degrees Celsius isn't how we should be measuring temperature?

Most of the countries on this planet, including the US, still use weather balloons every single day to measure the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere. If they were so disastrously unreliable we would have ditched them years ago. Bottom line, either the weather balloons and satellite data is wrong or Sherwood's methodology of using wind data to measure temperature is flawed and the computer models need more work.

The fact that you think weather balloons could be wildly inaccurate, but unverified, complex computer models could be correct, betrays your religious conviction in the theory of AGW.

measure decades-long trends

Except they are measuring long-term trends. There are over 800 weather balloon launch stations on the face of the Earth and the US National Weather Service launches weather balloons twice every single day from 92 different stations. So, they are being used to measure long-term trends, and have been for many decades, and there have been hundreds upon hundreds of weather balloon measurements since 1979, not one has found the hotspot that supports positive feedback in the models.

Do you think that generally a warmer atmosphere will have LESS absolute humidity? Globally?

If water has a negative feedback effect, yes, and that's what the weather balloons tell us (see Paltridge 2009). Do you think that water vapour just stays as water vapour permanently? Water vapour can turn into low clouds, rain, hail, snow, or high clouds - all have different effects. What if that extra water vapour turned into low clouds or just rained? That would cool the planet and that's generally what we would expect to see if there was a negative feedback. Net-positive feedbacks are rare in nature, most are negative and self-correcting.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

What I think about global warming is that it's just part of the earth's natural cycle, as well as the universe and so on.

The Mayan civilization knew this and recorded precise calendars until their people came to an end, which is most likely why the date ended 2012, not because it's the end of the world but more because there were no more Mayans to continue the project.

In everything under the sun there is a season, some yearly, some every hundred years and some every million years. We're lucky to be living in these times to witness this next "season change".

Anyway, that's my two cents.

If they were so disastrously unreliable we would have ditched them years ago.

No. They're not unreliable for their purpose---which is data assimilation for weather forecasting models (prediction windows within 2 weeks). To do what's necessary for long-term climate requires much more care.

Do you realize that there is significant evidence for systematic flaws and problems (for climate) in the observed data sets? And this can be true even if they are perfectly adequate as-is for operational weather prediction, because any small calibration drift is irrelevant for this purpose.

If one wanted good climate data to use as is, they'd have to be redesigned and would be far more expensive. And even then there would inevitably be systematic issues over decades.

Bottom line, either the weather balloons and satellite data is wrong or Sherwood's methodology of using wind data to measure temperature is flawed and the computer models need more work.

Stop the lawyertalk. 'wrong' depends on what you're doing with it.

Bottom line: you want to think there is no increase in absolute humidity when air gets hotter, because that is economically convenient.

To believe such an outcome we'd need very clear and convincing evidence that this is the most likely outcome (which obviously doesn't exist)---not that there is some possible (and decreasing) discrepancy between systematics of some measurements and others.

Do you think that water vapour just stays as water vapour permanently? Water vapour can turn into low clouds, rain, hail, snow, or high clouds - all have different effects. What if that extra water vapour turned into low clouds or just rained? That would cool the planet and that's generally what we would expect to see if there was a negative feedback.

Those are "clouds" in models which may be positive or negative; there are significant uncertainties.

Water vapor alone is straight up positive and significant. Before it rains, it has to have high humidity. And places with high humidity are just plain hot.

Net-positive feedbacks are rare in nature, most are negative and self-correcting.

A vague 'rule of thumb' is not a replacement for doing actual physics. There are plenty of positive feedbacks which *eventually* meet some additional physics at some limit. Where is that limit? Ever heard of a hurricane?



[edit on 20-8-2010 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Wow, really? Design in radiosondes lead to discrepancies in the magnitude of 1-3 degrees? I've never heard anything of the sort. Here's an extract taken from Wikipedia about radiosondes.

Yeah, really. If you bothered actually reading posts you would have heard something of the sort:

Originally posted by melatonin
...Last month when we first discussed this, you used the CCSP report as a major source in your argument. But you never really read it, no? Just cherrypicked the issues you thought supported your position (even though I showed you that the report suggested otherwise). Well, it outlines in detail why radiosondes are a really crap for trend analysis. Just a snippet:

The largest discontinuities appear to be related to solar heating of the temperature sensor and changes in design and/or data adjustments intended to deal with this problem. These discontinuities have greatest impact at stratospheric levels (the stratosphere’s lower boundary is ~16 km in the tropics, dropping to < 10 km in the high latitudes, Figure 2.2), where direct sunlight can cause radiosonde-measured temperatures to rise several ºC above ambient temperatures. For example, when Australia and U.S. stations changed instrumentation to Vaisala RS-80, processed stratospheric temperatures shifted downward by 1 to 3ºC (Parker et al., 1997, Christy et al., 2003).

CCSP (2006, Ch2, p33)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was a post one page back.

And even though you've been shown that a tropospheric hotspot is not a signature of AGW twice in this thread (even just in the last few posts), but is the result of any warming, you're still pushing this BS:

If anyone here is being disingenuous, it's you. Here's a good paper by David Evans if anyone is interested in learning more about the missing hotspot and its importance in falsifying AGW.

David Evans has about as much clue on this issue as yourself. That is, next to nothing. Your wilful ignorance is clear as day. And with that, you can waste someone else's time with your ignorant babblings.

Caio.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by melatonin]

No. They're not unreliable for their purpose---which is data assimilation for weather forecasting models (prediction windows within 2 weeks). To do what's necessary for long-term climate requires much more care.

Weather balloons are used to carry out temperature and relative humidity measurements, among other things. That is their purpose.

"Radiosondes carry temperature, pressure and relative humidity sensors and report up to six variables: pressure, geopotential height, temperature, dewpoint depression, wind direction and wind speed." -- NASA

"A weather or sounding balloon is a balloon (specifically a type of high altitude balloon) which carries instruments aloft to send back information on atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity and wind speed aloft by means of a small, expendable measuring device called a radiosonde" -- Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of radiosonde measurements of the troposphere above the equator since 1979, not one has detected the hotspot. Radiosondes are individually calibrated to 0.1°C and the hotspot should be at least 0.6°C and the studies I cited from NASA's website show that radiosondes can consistently and reliably measure the temperature to an accuracy of +/-0.3°C over a variety of different models (and that was back in the 1980s) so how could hundreds of radiosonde observations have missed the hotspot? And try to come up with something more original than they have uncertainties. That isn't proof.

Bottom line: you want to think there is no increase in absolute humidity when air gets hotter, because that is economically convenient.

I didn't say "when the air gets hotter"; that's a misrepresentation on your part. Obviously, more humidity in the atmosphere equals a warmer atmosphere, but water vapour doesn't just linger around in the atmosphere as water vapour, it's complex and fickle; it can turn into low clouds, rain, or hail, all of which would cool the planet and the evaporation process alone keeps the planet 50°C cooler, so it's not enough to say that increased evaporation will heat the planet. And I base the idea on water vapour having a negative feedback from radiosonde observations, not because it's "economically convenient". Don't put words in my mouth.

Those are "clouds" in models which may be positive or negative; there are significant uncertainties.

There is still uncertainty over clouds but the IPCC modellers assume they are net-warming. Why? Roy Spencer, using satellite data showed that as the planet warms we get fewer high clouds, consequently cooling the planet and showing that clouds cause a negative feedback.

A vague 'rule of thumb' is not a replacement for doing actual physics. There are plenty of positive feedbacks which *eventually* meet some additional physics at some limit. Where is that limit? Ever heard of a hurricane?

How can such a strong positive feedback exist in a dissipative system? Negative feedbacks, by their very nature lead to stability, they're essentially self-correcting systems and considered good, whereas positive feedbacks, on the other hand are considered bad because they lead to unstable and explosive situations. When you look at Earth's atmosphere throughout its history though, it's been incredibly stable. Throughout 600 million years there's only been about a 10°C global temperature average variation, and the Earth has had to contend with asteroid strikes, super volcanoes, orbital changes, continental drifts, etc. Something is stabilising our atmosphere, which would support the idea of a climatic negative feedback system.

ever heard of a hurricane

I didn't say positive feedbacks don't exist, just that they're rare in nature. That's all.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I didn't say "when the air gets hotter"; that's a misrepresentation on your part. Obviously, more humidity in the atmosphere equals a warmer atmosphere, but water vapour doesn't just linger around in the atmosphere as water vapour, it's complex and fickle; it can turn into low clouds, rain, or hail, all of which would cool the planet and the evaporation process alone keeps the planet 50°C cooler, so it's not enough to say that increased evaporation will heat the planet.

There's conservation of energy in local evaporation. Unless you radiate it to space, this is just moving it from one form to another.

And I base the idea on water vapour having a negative feedback from radiosonde observations, not because it's "economically convenient". Don't put words in my mouth.

Where is the net negative feedback?

There is still uncertainty over clouds but the IPCC modellers assume they are net-warming. Why? Roy Spencer, using satellite data showed that as the planet warms we get fewer high clouds, consequently cooling the planet and showing that clouds cause a negative feedback.

So you want to get in the nitty gritty of climate sensitivity? Water vapor is a clearly net positive feedback---when condensed as clouds it could be positive or negative. We're not sure.

A vague 'rule of thumb' is not a replacement for doing actual physics. There are plenty of positive feedbacks which *eventually* meet some additional physics at some limit. Where is that limit? Ever heard of a hurricane?

How can such a strong positive feedback exist in a dissipative system? Negative feedbacks, by their very nature lead to stability, they're essentially self-correcting systems and considered good, whereas positive feedbacks, on the other hand are considered bad because they lead to unstable and explosive situations. When you look at Earth's atmosphere throughout its history though, it's been incredibly stable. Throughout 600 million years there's only been about a 10°C global temperature average variation, and the Earth has had to contend with asteroid strikes, super volcanoes, orbital changes, continental drifts, etc. Something is stabilising our atmosphere, which would support the idea of a climatic negative feedback system.

In those 600 million years nobody has taken the net carbon which was geologically deposited over 100 million years and inserted it as a step-function into the atmosphere.

quote]ever heard of a hurricane

I didn't say positive feedbacks don't exist, just that they're rare in nature. That's all.
[edit on 20-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

And yes there is eventually 'negative feedback' in that a hurricane does not grow to have the radius of the Atlantic ocean. It can still be very destructive.

What matters is if there's a positive feedback from the initial state we are in now, not whether there's an additional negative feedback at +6 C excursion in 3000 years after the planet is uninhabitable for civilization between +40 and -40 degrees latitude. Sure, eventually there will be one.

To come back to the point, from where we are now, warmer air will take in more water and thereby amplify the greenhouse effect from rising CO2 + other long-lived greenhouse gases. In addition there is a change in cloud patterns which may be in either direction. If you think there is no net feedback on CO2, you have to believe the net cloud feedback is negative and is as large in magnitude as the humidity feedback is positive. Nobody who's done quantitative computations thinks this is reasonable.

At this point this gets technically detailed enough that we should listen to the people who do this for a living, primarily the thousands of non-famous scientists, and not the same few contrarian names who keep on coming up over and over, countable on one hand (Lindzen, Spencer, sometimes Christy).


[edit on 20-8-2010 by mbkennel]