How long before Global Warming kills us all?

reply to post by mordant1


Your post of the molecule animation demonstrates you have no scientific education whatsoever. The activity depicted in it is not proof of anything unique and is found in all molecules of matter, all gases in the atmosphere.
Nice try, but incorrect verbiage doesnt make up for the incapacity to identify the ignorance of what you base your very premise on.

reply to post by mordant1


Wow.

I really don't know why I ever bother using actual science on this board to try and explain things to people who are so obviously threatened by things they don't understand. And the H.BSc degree I just graduated with last month begs to differ with your expert clairvoyant reading of my scientific education.

The graphic was simply an example of how bending oscillations in a CO2 molecule transform it into a GHG - and NO - not all molecules do this. There are different ways something can absorb/re-emit EM radiation: through oscillating electrons in their orbitals (high energy), vibrational modes in the bonds, or rotation of the molecules themselves (lower energy).

Each method/energy level corresponds to a different frequency range - and the ones that apply to the infrared are particularly centered in specific vibrational modes, provided they create a dipole. The graphic was an animated example of how "springy" CO2 is due to it's geometry, and hence why it functions as such an important greenhouse gas.

But I didn't just leave you some vague cartoon either. I also offered you a link that does a pretty thorough job of explaining all this in layman's terms - i.e. why some gases act as GHG's and others don't.

But did you even bother to read it? No of course not. You just sped right ahead to the reply button to post some arrogant nonsense about how I obviously "don't know science".

In the meantime - it's amazing how transparent people like you are on this board. Your last couple of posts clearly demonstrated you have no idea what you're even talking about. It's quite apparent you just suck up all of your information from people who deliberately exploit your ignorance to push forward their agenda. And you are so afraid of even considering this possibility that you just shut out and reject any information that might lead to it, no matter how rooted in logic or fact it might be.

And then you probably sit there and wonder how some people dare call you a "denier" right?

You know what - keep living in your deluded little bubble where everyone else supposedly has the "incapacity to identify ignorance". Keep trying to make yourself feel big by belittling those who disagree with you, and stating your false CO2 paradigms to those who don't know any better.

Just be careful who you decide to pick a "science fight" with next time. Because you make a complete fool of yourself.

Originally posted by kodiak60
reply to post by network dude

 

Its not just our planet heating all the planets in our solar system are. Recently i viewed a youtube vid mr. akako" i dont know how to spell his name sorry" and europa was spewing out huge geysers of water he said this was a game changer.

I think you're confusing Europa with Enceladus, but either way - "all planets are warming up" is just another myth:

Global warming on other planets in the solar system
Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

reply to post by mc_squared


Gosh, It's been quite a while since I got a simple undergraduate degree, good work but no place to rest on some barely minimal laurels. Iaken as claimed you have a degree, why not actually apply scientific principle instead of agendoid conclusions digested and peristalsed past a sphinteor or two just for you spit out as your own work

[edit on 14-7-2010 by mordant1]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The premise of current AGW propaganda is that industrial CO2 emissions are causing the planetary atmosphere to retain more heat than it loses.

Even if that is true I don't think it spells our doom. For better or for worse, we have finite supplies of these CO2 sources like oil and coal. Eventually we will burn through our reserves. It may not take as long as some people think, given the way developing nations like China are increasing their carbon fuel usage. So global warming can only go so far as we only have so many carbon based fuels to consume.

Also the additional CO2 may stimulate growth of plants on land and algae in the water, and more plants means more CO2 absorbed by the plants so it may be somewhat self-limiting in that respect also. Of course deforestation will offset this benefit somewhat, so deforestation is a real concern.

For all we know a few extra degrees of warming may just be a prelude before the next ice age.

How long?

My colleagues and I have figured that it will take us between 12 and 15 THOUSAND years to cycle through the next Ice Age, after which we can expect to start the normal, natural next warming cycle, and that peak will occur in 25 to 30 thousand years.

Don't hold your breath...

Originally posted by mc_squared

 

"The graphic was simply an example of how bending oscillations in a CO2 molecule transform it into a GHG - and NO - not all molecules do this. There are different ways something can absorb/re-emit EM radiation: through oscillating electrons in their orbitals (high energy), vibrational modes in the bonds, or rotation of the molecules themselves (lower energy)."

I don't think anyone seriously contests that CO2 is a GHG and absorbs infrared radiation and has a warming effect, the question is, can it significantly push up temperatures? I don't think anyone seriously suggests that CO2 by itself can cause significant warming. For a few reasons - not least of all because CO2 behaves logarithmically according to Lambert-Beers Law - which basically means that the more CO2 that gets thrown into the atmosphere the less warming effect each molecule has because there are less and less photons left over at the right wavelengths. Interestingly, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is not in question, even the modellers completely agree with it. What is in question is climate sensitivity and the alleged positive feedback factors. Few people realise that the IPCC rely on feedback factors from water vapour and clouds to strongly amplify the small warming effect that a doubling of CO2 will have - and these feedbacks simply don't exist - as thousands of radiosonde observations and satellite data shows.

"My colleagues and I have figured that it will take us between 12 and 15 THOUSAND years to cycle through the next Ice Age, after which we can expect to start the normal, natural next warming cycle, and that peak will occur in 25 to 30 thousand years."

Have your colleagues looked at the Vostok ice core data yet?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
What is in question is climate sensitivity and the alleged positive feedback factors. Few people realise that the IPCC rely on feedback factors from water vapour and clouds to strongly amplify the small warming effect that a doubling of CO2 will have - and these feedbacks simply don't exist - as thousands of radiosonde observations and satellite data shows.

Water vapour feedback:

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santera,b, C. Mearsc, F. J. Wentzc, K. E. Taylora, P. J. Glecklera, T. M. L. Wigleyd, T. P. Barnette, J. S. Boylea, W. Brüggemannf, N. P. Gillettg, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehld, T. Nozawah, D. W. Piercee, P. A. Stotti, W. M. Washingtond, and M. F. Wehnerj
+ Author Affiliations

Abstract

Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

Cloud feedback:

Science 24 July 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5939, pp. 460 - 464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
REPORTS
Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback
Amy C. Clement,1,* Robert Burgman,1 Joel R. Norris2
Feedbacks involving low-level clouds remain a primary cause of uncertainty in global climate model projections. This issue was addressed by examining changes in low-level clouds over the Northeast Pacific in observations and climate models. Decadal fluctuations were identified in multiple, independent cloud data sets, and changes in cloud cover appeared to be linked to changes in both local temperature structure and large-scale circulation. This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales. The observed relationships between cloud cover and regional meteorological conditions provide a more complete way of testing the realism of the cloud simulation in current-generation climate models. The only model that passed this test simulated a reduction in cloud cover over much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased, providing modeling evidence for a positive low-level cloud feedback.

Of course, clouds are the one area of highest uncertainty.

Albedo:

doi:10.1029/2007GL029703

Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast

Julienne Stroeve
National Snow and Ice Data Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Marika M. Holland
Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Walt Meier
National Snow and Ice Data Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Ted Scambos
National Snow and Ice Data Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Mark Serreze
National Snow and Ice Data Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply. All models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) show declining Arctic ice cover over this period. However, depending on the time window for analysis, none or very few individual model simulations show trends comparable to observations. If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhouse gas (GHG) loading, 33–38% of the observed September trend from 1953–2006 is externally forced, growing to 47–57% from 1979–2006. Given evidence that as a group, the models underestimate the GHG response, the externally forced component may be larger. While both observed and modeled Antarctic winter trends are small, comparisons for summer are confounded by generally poor model performance.

To summarise: ice in arctic is being lost at rates even greater than IPCC models projected. Losing ice alters albedo. Ice reflects sunlight more effectively than oceans. Same mechanism can be applied to the loss of surface ice cover:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22504, 6 PP., 2007
doi:10.1029/2007GL031474

Recent Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent trends and implications for the snow-albedo feedback

Stephen J. Déry
Environmental Science and Engineering Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada

Ross D. Brown
Section des Processus Climatiques, Environnement Canada à Ouranos, Montréal, Quebec, Canada

Monotonic trend analysis of Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) over the period 1972–2006 with the Mann-Kendall test reveals significant declines in SCE during spring over North America and Eurasia, with lesser declines during winter and some increases in fall SCE. The weekly mean trend attains −1.28, −0.78, and −0.48 × 106 km2 (35 years)−1 over the Northern Hemisphere, North America, and Eurasia, respectively. The standardized SCE time series vary and trend coherently over Eurasia and North America, with evidence of a poleward amplification of decreasing SCE trends during spring. Multiple linear regression analyses reveal a significant dependence of the retreat of the spring continental SCE on latitude and elevation. The poleward amplification is consistent with an enhanced snow-albedo feedback over northern latitudes that acts to reinforce an initial anomaly in the cryospheric system.

Permafrost:

Letter
Nature 443, 71-75 (7 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05040; Received 5 December 2005; Accepted 3 July 2006

Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming

K. M. Walter1, S. A. Zimov2, J. P. Chanton3, D. Verbyla4 and F. S. Chapin, III1

Top of page
Large uncertainties in the budget of atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas, limit the accuracy of climate change projections1, 2. Thaw lakes in North Siberia are known to emit methane3, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. Here we report a new method of measuring ebullition and use it to quantify methane emissions from two thaw lakes in North Siberia. We show that ebullition accounts for 95 per cent of methane emissions from these lakes, and that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times higher than previously estimated3. Extrapolation of these fluxes indicates that thaw lakes in North Siberia emit 3.8 teragrams of methane per year, which increases present estimates of methane emissions from northern wetlands (< 6–40 teragrams per year; refs 1, 2, 4–6) by between 10 and 63 per cent. We find that thawing permafrost along lake margins accounts for most of the methane released from the lakes, and estimate that an expansion of thaw lakes between 1974 and 2000, which was concurrent with regional warming, increased methane emissions in our study region by 58 per cent. Furthermore, the Pleistocene age (35,260–42,900 years) of methane emitted from hotspots along thawing lake margins indicates that this positive feedback to climate warming has led to the release of old carbon stocks previously stored in permafrost.

Obvious enough. Melting permafrost leads to release of methane - a potent GHG.

And, finally, the oft-cited denier's zombie lag argument bites back:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L10702, 4 PP., 2006
doi:10.1029/2005GL025044

Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change

Marten Scheffer
Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands

Victor Brovkin
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany

Peter M. Cox
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Winfrith, Dorset, UK

There is good evidence that higher global temperatures will promote a rise of greenhouse gas levels, implying a positive feedback which will increase the effect of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures. However, the magnitude of this effect predicted by the available models remains highly uncertain, due to the accumulation of uncertainties in the processes thought to be involved. Here we present an alternative way of estimating the magnitude of the feedback effect based on reconstructed past changes. Linking this information with the mid-range Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimation of the greenhouse gas effect on temperature we suggest that the feedback of global temperature on atmospheric CO2 will promote warming by an extra 15–78% on a century-scale. This estimate may be conservative as we did not account for synergistic effects of likely temperature moderated increase in other greenhouse gases. Our semi-empirical approach independently supports process based simulations suggesting that feedback may cause a considerable boost in warming.

A CO2-induced positive feedback isolated from human emissions.





[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by mc_squared


Sorry NO!
THe assumption that humans have changed a thing or it's CO2 more than something else is not proven in any o the crap you post, rather is taken as a given. Assuming the proof of a thing to 'prove' it doesnt really work though it's assuring.

How nice and fortunate that you have the hookup to the only valid info, bought and paid for by govt when those that arent so lucky to be funded by those that have a vested personal financial interest in the outcome mostly seem to have conflicting interpretations of the global situation. All obfuscation aside with all the terrible ice meltage, there is not any significant raise in ocean levels, the freshwater great lakes of the world have lost significant volume so where does all this water that you imply go? Your information focuses on a small area and attempts to extropolate to the whole planet and that doesent work.

Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo

What findings would these be? Do you have any links to these papers? The climate models predict a characteristic heating pattern induced by an increase in greenhouse gases 8-12km above the equator where evaporation rates occur faster than anywhere else and where an increase in WV should appear first. Although, observations by UAH, RSS and thousands of radiosonde measurements all unequivocally show no hotspot - which pulls the rug out of every other point. You can see how the models projections compare with real-world measurements in chapter 5, page 116 of CCSP report here: www.climatescience.gov... And in the NIPCC report too, pages 7-8: www.heartland.org... The models simply aren't mirroring what the observations tell us.

Of course, clouds are the one area of highest uncertainty.

Clouds are unpredictable and mind-bogglingly complex, but the models assume they are net-warming and there's no empirical evidence to suggest that they are. There's an interesting paper by Roy Spencer that shows clouds actually cause a negative feedback, not a net-positive, based on satellite data. Others, like Josh Willis, have come to similar conclusions.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Nathan-D]

lol, so you make the claim of non-existence of positive feedbacks. I provide evidence of several ranging from ice/snow-albedo to permafrost methane, and you shove goalposts to issues with models of vertical temperature projections.

Sweet.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
lol, so you make the claim of non-existence of positive feedbacks. I provide evidence of several ranging from ice/snow-albedo to permafrost methane, and you shove goalposts to issues with models of vertical temperature projections.

Sweet.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]

No, NO! You do not procede to peripheral allegorical material by simply assuming there is any man made component or CO2 is THE proximate cause.
Man made and CO2 being the primary element have not been made unequivocally or even modeled sucessfully and cannot therefore be assumed for your own celebrations, mr happy feet

[edit on 15-7-2010 by mordant1]

lol, look pretty simple. You say:

Originally posted by Nathan-D
What is in question is climate sensitivity and the alleged positive feedback factors. Few people realise that the IPCC rely on feedback factors from water vapour and clouds to strongly amplify the small warming effect that a doubling of CO2 will have - and these feedbacks simply don't exist - as thousands of radiosonde observations and satellite data shows.

I show you that you are wrong. There are several confirmed feedbacks - I haven't even listed them all.

Your focus is on one single discrepancy (data-model) in one area of the globe (the tropics) in one area of the atmosphere (troposphere) with a subset of measures (radiosonde/some satellite) that was highlighted a number of years ago.

And since then the data and models have been shown to be consistent:

Research Article
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

B. D. Santer 1 *, P. W. Thorne 2, L. Haimberger 3, K. E. Taylor 1, T. M. L. Wigley 4, J. R. Lanzante 5, S. Solomon 6, M. Free 7, P. J. Gleckler 1, P. D. Jones 8, T. R. Karl 9, S. A. Klein 1, C. Mears 10, D. Nychka 4, G. A. Schmidt 11, S. C. Sherwood 12, F. J. Wentz 10

1Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
2U.K. Meteorological Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
3Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A-1090, Vienna, Austria
4National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA
5National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08542, USA
6National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
7National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
8Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
9National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC 28801, USA
10Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA 95401, USA
11NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
12Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
email: B. D. Santer ([email protected])
*Correspondence to B. D. Santer, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA.

ABSTRACT
A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a potentially serious inconsistency between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.

This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not significantly different from those in all other model simulations.
Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test.
Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society

Much like what happened when the likes of Spencer and Christy pushed their erroneous UAH Satellite data as problematic for the temperature trends, we can question both the data and the models. And often we find the data to be unreliable - like in both of the examples noted.

Cheers.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Focus on minutiae and miss the obvious big picture, No water level increase, no net melting which means there is a balance in freeze and thaw. THe ONLY indicator of net global heat increase over the time claimed is ocean water level and curiously those pushing the agenda are not leaving their estates and the seaside urban regions where they reside.

Originally posted by melatonin
lol, so you make the claim of non-existence of positive feedbacks. I provide evidence of several ranging from ice/snow-albedo to permafrost methane, and you shove goalposts to issues with models of vertical temperature projections.[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]

Excuse me? Move the goalposts? How am I moving the goalposts? I've just given you direct links to the US CCSP and NIPCC reports showing that the models are fundamentally flawed. I'm hardly moving the goalposts.

If there is no hotspot in the troposphere above the tropics as the models predict then there is no major feedback amplification from water vapour and the theory collapses like a stack of cards. I'm focusing on water vapour, because the supposed feedback loop from water vapour makes up two thirds of the predicted warming.

And you didn't really provide evidence of anything. You just quoted a few paragraphs from somewhere without providing any sources or evidence. And more importantly, you still haven't provided any evidence that CO2 can significantly push up temperatures.

And the fact that some ice is metling somewhere doesn't mean anything because it doesn't tell us what caused the warming. It just goes to show that you don't really understand "cause and effect."

I can see you've moved a bit now. So rather than the feedbacks don't exist:

Originally posted by Nathan-D
What is in question is climate sensitivity and the alleged positive feedback factors. Few people realise that the IPCC rely on feedback factors from water vapour and clouds to strongly amplify the small warming effect that a doubling of CO2 will have - and these feedbacks simply don't exist - as thousands of radiosonde observations and satellite data shows.

Water vapour feedback:

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santera,b, C. Mearsc, F. J. Wentzc, K. E. Taylora, P. J. Glecklera, T. M. L. Wigleyd, T. P. Barnette, J. S. Boylea, W. Brüggemannf, N. P. Gillettg, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehld, T. Nozawah, D. W. Piercee, P. A. Stotti, W. M. Washingtond, and M. F. Wehnerj
+ Author Affiliations

Abstract

Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

If there is no hotspot in the troposphere above the tropics as the models predict then there is no major feedback amplification from water vapour and the theory collapses like a stack of cards.

It's now about 'major' feedback from water vapour, lol.

I've just given you direct links to the US CCSP and NIPCC reports showing that the models are fundamentally flawed. I'm hardly moving the goalposts.

No, what it shows is that there was a discrepancy between some data and models. It can be due to either data or model, or even both.

Again, there may well be no problematic discrepancy between data-model (see Santer et al., 2008) so the argument is moot. Indeed, the data has been shown to have issues.

You're now arguing for discrepancy, therefore no feedback/no major feedback and a recent study shows there may be no inconsistency. However, we have observational data that the feedback exists (e.g., Santer et al., 2007; Soden, 2001) - this was my point. You say "no feedback", I show the observational evidence there is - you shift to the data-model issue in the tropics and try to now minimise the feedback.

If we go back to your original point on climate sensitivity, it is estimated at a best estimate of 3'C from various lines of evidence, both model (Knutti, 2005; Hugerl, 2006; Annan, 2006; Royer, 2007) and observational (Bender, 2010, Tung, 2007; Hansen, 1993; Lorius, 1990. So, again, the argument about radiosonde data and models in the tropics is a minor issue, and we also have evidence of several forms of positive feedback (which you said was non-existent), including water vapour.

You just quoted a few paragraphs from somewhere without providing any sources or evidence. And more importantly, you still haven't provided any evidence that CO2 can significantly push up temperatures.

And the fact that some ice is metling somewhere doesn't mean anything because it doesn't tell us what caused the warming. It just goes to show that you don't really understand "cause and effect."

The 'few paragraphs' are abstracts from actual scientific studies - the primary literature. I know, I know, you prefer Heartland think-tank articles, lol.

And I'm not interested in your further goalpost shifting, I have better things to do than to chase you down your denier's trial.

Ciao.

ABE: and just to consolidate the evidence for a major positive feedback from water vapour:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, 4 PP., 2008
doi:10.1029/2008GL035333

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008

A. E. Dessler
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Z. Zhang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

P. Yang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.

So, the water feedback feedback exists, and observational evidence shows it will be major and is consistent with climate models.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]

"I can see you've moved a bit now. So rather than the feedbacks don't exist"

I don't see how my comments are contradictory? Care to elaborate?

In my first comment I said that the feedbacks (assumed in the models) didn't exist. And in my second comment I said that there is no major amplification of water vapour (as assumed in the models). Both my comments can be true at the same time.

we can question both the data and the models. And often we find the data to be unreliable - like in both of the examples noted

The fact that you believe satellite data in conjunction with thousands of radiosonde measurements could be wildly inaccurate, but complex, unverified "climate models" are right, betrays your religious conviction in the theory of AGW.

Your focus is on one single discrepancy (data-model) in one area of the globe (the tropics) in one area of the atmosphere (troposphere) with a subset of measures (radiosonde/some satellite) that was highlighted a number of years ago.

I'm focusing on the troposphere for a good reason - because that's exactly where the climate models are focused. Why would I focus anywhere else? They predict a hot spot in he troposphere, which hasn't materialised. If the CO2-water positive feedback mechanism were true, this is the first place we would should see any warming because evaporation rates occur faster in the tropics than anywhere else. And if you want to focus on the whole atmosphere, we can. Satellite data shows there's been no statistically significant warming since 1998 despite an increase in human-produced CO2 emissions. If CO2's effect is supposedly monotonic, temperatures should have risen, but they haven't.

It's now about 'major' feedback from water vapour, lol

What are you talking about?

Again, there may well be no problematic discrepancy between data-model (see Santer et al., 2008) so the argument is moot. Indeed, the data has been shown to have issues.

Santer didn't find the hotspot. He simply said that the hotspot might be hidden in the "noise" (natural variation) and if that's the case the most generous interpretation we can infer from that is that carbon's effect must be minor.

If we go back to your original point on climate sensitivity, it is estimated at a best estimate of 3'C from various lines of evidence, both model (Knutti, 2005; Hugerl, 2006; Annan, 2006; Royer, 2007) and observational (Bender, 2010, Tung, 2007; Hansen, 1993; Lorius, 1990. So, again, the argument about radiosonde data and models in the tropics is a minor issue, and we also have evidence of several forms of positive feedback (which you said was non-existent), including water vapour.

What do Knutti, Annan, Hugerl, and the other scientists you name all base their conclusions on? Is it satellite data? Curious people like me would like to know. Douglass, Lindzen and Spencer all show that the models overestimate climate sensitivity by at least a factor of 6, and they use satellite data.

So, again, the argument about radiosonde data and models in the tropics is a minor issue

It's only a minor issue if we assume that thousands of thermometers individually calibrated to 0.1C could be wrong.

The 'few paragraphs' are abstracts from actual scientific studies - the primary literature. I know, I know, you prefer Heartland think-tank articles, lol.

I was in the process of writing that reply before you posted your last one (it was directed at your first reply).

And I'm not interested in your further goalpost shifting.

Fair enough. Have a nice day.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D

we can question both the data and the models. And often we find the data to be unreliable - like in both of the examples noted

The fact that you believe satellite data in conjunction with thousands of radiosonde measurements could be wildly inaccurate, but complex, unverified "climate models" are right, betrays your religious conviction in the theory of AGW.

The evidence shows that one issue is data biases for the radiosondes. You do understand that 'thousands of radiosonde measurements' which involves different instruments, practices, and coverage isn't exactly ideal?

Journal of Climate 2009; 22: 465-485
Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments
Holly A. Titchner, P. W. Thorne, and M. P. McCarthy

Biases and uncertainties in large-scale radiosonde temperature trends in the troposphere are critically reassessed. Realistic validation experiments are performed on an automatic radiosonde homogenization system by applying it to climate model data with four distinct sets of simulated breakpoint profiles. Knowledge of the “truth” permits a critical assessment of the ability of the system to recover the large-scale trends and a reinterpretation of the results when applied to the real observations.

The homogenization system consistently reduces the bias in the daytime tropical, global, and Northern Hemisphere (NH) extratropical trends but underestimates the full magnitude of the bias. Southern Hemisphere (SH) extratropical and all nighttime trends were less well adjusted owing to the sparsity of stations. The ability to recover the trends is dependent on the underlying error structure, and the true trend does not necessarily lie within the range of estimates. The implications are that tropical tropospheric trends in the unadjusted daytime radiosonde observations, and in many current upper-air datasets, are biased cold, but the degree of this bias cannot be robustly quantified. Therefore, remaining biases in the radiosonde temperature record may account for the apparent tropical lapse rate discrepancy between radiosonde data and climate models. Furthermore, the authors find that the unadjusted global and NH extratropical tropospheric trends are biased cold in the daytime radiosonde observations.

Finally, observing system experiments show that, if the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Upper Air Network (GUAN) were to make climate quality observations adhering to the GCOS monitoring principles, then one would be able to constrain the uncertainties in trends at a more comprehensive set of stations. This reaffirms the importance of running GUAN under the GCOS monitoring principles.

Article
Nature Geoscience 1, 399 - 403 (2008)
Published online: 25 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo208

Subject Category: Climate science

Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds

Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood

Abstract
Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.650.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.

Journal of Climate 2008; 21: 4587-4606
Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data

Leopold Haimberger, Christina Tavolato*, and Stefan Sperka
Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Abstract
The apparent cooling trend in observed global mean temperature series from radiosonde records relative to Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiances has been a long-standing problem in upper-air climatology. It is very likely caused by a warm bias of radiosonde temperatures in the 1980s, which has been reduced over time with better instrumentation and correction software. The warm bias in the MSU-equivalent lower stratospheric (LS) layer is estimated as 0.6 ± 0.3 K in the global mean and as 1.0 ± 0.3 K in the tropical (20°S–20°N) mean. These estimates are based on comparisons of unadjusted radiosonde data, not only with MSU data but also with background forecast (BG) temperature time series from the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) and with two new homogenized radiosonde datasets. One of the radiosonde datasets [Radiosonde Observation Correction using Reanalyses (RAOBCORE) version 1.4] employs the BG as reference for homogenization, which is not strictly independent of MSU data. The second radiosonde dataset uses the dates of the breakpoints detected by RAOBCORE as metadata for homogenization. However, it relies only on homogeneous segments of neighboring radiosonde data for break-size estimation. Therefore, adjustments are independent of satellite data.

Both of the new adjusted radiosonde time series are in better agreement with satellite data than comparable published radiosonde datasets, not only for zonal means but also at most single stations. A robust warming maximum of 0.2–0.3K (10 yr)−1 for the 1979–2006 period in the tropical upper troposphere could be found in both homogenized radiosonde datasets. The maximum is consistent with mean temperatures of a thick layer in the upper troposphere and upper stratosphere (TS), derived from M3U3 radiances. Inferred from these results is that it is possible to detect and remove most of the mean warm bias from the radiosonde records, and thus most of the trend discrepancy compared to MSU LS and TS temperature products.

The comprehensive intercomparison also suggests that the BG is temporally quite homogeneous after 1986. Only in the early 1980s could some inhomogeneities in the BG be detected and quantified.

For the satellite data, there are various series: UAH, RSS etc, and as Santer notes none are actually significantly different than model projections.

So, in sum...

(i) The evidence shows that water vapour feedback exists, other evidence shows it is likely to be as strong as indicated by the models.

(ii) Evidence shows that the previous discrepancy between data-models in one area of the globe (tropics) in one area of the atmosphere (troposphere) is most likely due to data biases and processing methods, and that there is no real discrepancy when these biases are corrected for.

Not much left to say really. Although I note again your attempt to move the goalposts with Santer's work. If you want evidence of the tropospheric hotspot, try the Allen et al. (2008) study above or Fu et al. (2005; who correct for satellite biases).

Satellite-derived vertical dependence of tropical tropospheric
temperature trends

Qiang Fu and Celeste M. Johanson
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Received 18 December 2004; revised 25 March 2005; accepted 27 April 2005; published 26 May 2005.

[1] Tropical atmospheric temperatures in different
tropospheric layers are retrieved using satellite-borne
Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) observations. We find
that tropospheric temperature trends in the tropics are
greater than the surface warming and increase with height.
Our analysis indicates that the near-zero trend from Spencer
and Christy’s MSU channel-2 angular scanning retrieval for
the tropical low-middle troposphere (T2LT) is inconsistent
with tropical tropospheric warming derived from their MSU
T2 and T4 data. We show that the T2LT trend bias can be
largely attributed to the periods when the satellites had large
local equator crossing time drifts that cause large changes in
calibration target temperatures and large diurnal drifts.

The satellite data is also known to have numerous biases: from contamination from the stratosphere and diurnal drift (amongst others).

Religion is essentially based on a belief held in the face of the lack of or contradicting evidence. Faith, as they call it. I think the faith is all yours, dude.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]

For the satellite data, there are various series: UAH, RSS etc, and as Santer notes none are actually significantly different than model projections.

Simply not true. See here: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... and here: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... Admittedly, the RSS data slightly overlaps with the models - but that's as good as it gets. This is from the aforementioned NIPCC report I cited earlier.

Not much left to say really. Although I note again your attempt to move the goalposts with Santer's work. If you want evidence of the tropospheric hotspot, try the Allen et al. (2008) study above.

I haven't read Allen's 2008 paper (any links)?, but I've read Santer's 2005 paper about the tropospheric hotspot.

Religion is essentially based on a belief held in the face of the lack of evidence. Faith, as they call it. I think the faith is all yours, dude.

That's funny, because you still haven't shown me one single piece of scientific evidence that CO2 can significantly push up temperatures. All ice core samples would disagree with you - as they clearly show temperature drives carbon. Ah well, nevermind.

Originally posted by Nathan-D

For the satellite data, there are various series: UAH, RSS etc, and as Santer notes none are actually significantly different than model projections.

Simply not true. See here: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... and here: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... Admittedly, the RSS data slightly overlaps with the models - but that's as good as it gets. This is from the aforementioned NIPCC report I cited earlier.

The CCSP report is old hat (from where the graphs are from). It noted a potential discrepancy, and even they suggested it was likely a result of data issues and they note that newer corrected datasets no longer show a discrepancy:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

CCSP (2006) [abstract]

Further research has confirmed there are data issues. I've outlined a large number of studies providing this evidence above. Just referring back to the CCSP report isn't really going to suffice here - most of these studies were completed post-CCSP.

I've even thrown you a bone by saying we can have both data and model biases. And even if we have data biases, doesn't mean model biases won't exist.

I haven't read Allen's 2008 paper (any links)?, but I've read Santer's 2005 paper about the tropospheric hotspot.

Allen & Sherwood (2008)

And try not to conflate CO2-induced effects and the 'hotspot' (e.g., "we can infer from that is that carbon's effect must be minor"). One is due to radiative physics and the other due to lapse rate. Different beasties. Indeed, the lack of a hotspot tells us nada about CO2-induced warming, just the vertical and regional nature of warming - it is not specific to GHG-induced warming. If you've read Santer et al (2005) you would know this anyway (i.e., it is a physical mechanism readily shown to exist for short-term variability).

Other studies have already indicated a strong positive water vapour feedback with absolutely no reference to a tropospheric hotspot and adiabatic lapse rate (e.g., Dessler et al.).

That's funny, because you still haven't shown me one single piece of scientific evidence that CO2 can significantly push up temperatures. All ice core samples would disagree with you - as they clearly show temperature drives carbon. Ah well, nevermind.

Honestly, dude, I'm not interested in chasing after you. I can't even pin you down on this, why the hell would I want to move on to other zombie memes like the lag fallacy? I'm well-versed on the denier's MO.

And here's another I came across showing data-model consistency:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L18702, 5 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL039777

Atmospheric temperature change detection with GPS radio occultation 1995 to 2008

A. K. Steiner
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change and Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Meteorology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

G. Kirchengast
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change and Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Meteorology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

B. C. Lackner
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change and Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Meteorology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

B. Pirscher
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change and Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Meteorology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

M. Borsche
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change and Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Meteorology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

U. Foelsche
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change and Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Meteorology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Existing upper air records of radiosonde and operational satellite data recently showed a reconciliation of temperature trends but structural uncertainties remain. GPS radio occultation (RO) provides a new high-quality record, profiling the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere with stability and homogeneity. Here we show that climate trends are since recently detected by RO data, consistent with earliest detection times estimated by simulations. Based on a temperature change detection study using the RO record within 1995–2008 we found a significant cooling trend in the tropical lower stratosphere in February while in the upper troposphere an emerging warming trend is obscured by El Niño variability. The observed trends and warming/cooling contrast across the tropopause agree well with radiosonde data and basically with climate model simulations, the latter tentatively showing less contrast. The performance of the short RO record to date underpins its capability to become a climate benchmark record in the future.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by melatonin]