Climate Change Discussion

[WetEV]

Discussion moved due to title change.

[WetEV]

Clouds continue to be the biggest unknown in our climate system, and there are increasing indications that they are a) influenced by the Sun and b) provide a strong negative feedback effect. Anyone who claims to be able to model Earth's climate is
seriously deluded since cloud effects cannot be modeled at a time when their formation is still largely a mystery. Instead, climate modellers make massive assumptions about how clouds respond to various conditions. They have no other choice.

Clouds and water vapor are "fast feedback" as they change quickly (scale of time of days, not years), so no, climate models are not based on just assumptions. The climate models of clouds are based on weather models and observations.

So here is the first challenge:

Provide a physics based weather model with strong negative feedback from clouds that reproduces weather at least as well as current weather models.


On a global scale, a good time period of model is the year after Mt Pinatubo. Climate models predicted cooling. Challenge two:

Provide a physics based climate model with strong negative feedback from clouds that matches the observed cooling at least as well as current climate models.

Lastly, weather varies and so do short term climate indications such as global average temperature. Challenge three:

Provide a physics based climate model with strong negative feedback from clouds that matches the observed statistics of variation of climate statistics as well as current climate models.

Assumptions? No. Science. Want to refute that? Provide better science. Answer the challenges above.

[GRA]

Via GCC:

UCLA/LLNL study concludes most climate models overestimate increase in global precipitation due to climate change

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12 ... -llnl.html

UCLA and Lawrence Livermore researchers have found that most climate models overestimate the increase in global precipitation due to climate change. The team found global precipitation increase per degree of global warming at the end of the 21st century may be about 40% smaller than what the models, on average, currently predict. The research appears in journal Nature.

Specifically, the team looked at 25 models and found they underestimate the increase in absorption of sunlight by water vapor as the atmosphere becomes moister, and therefore overestimate increases in global precipitation. . . .

[WetEV]

CO2 has NO ability to heat the oceans and can only reduce the temperature drop of the top 1millimeter surface of the oceans by a mere 0.001K. In other words, it doesn't have any meaningful effect on the heat stored in oceans, which represents 2100X as much energy storage as the atmosphere.

That would be interesting, if the heat flow mostly was from the atmosphere to the ocean.

But that's not the case.

Heat flow is mostly from the ocean (or a lake, or a swimming pool) to the atmosphere. This is something you can verify in your backyard.

If the heat flow was from the atmosphere to the water, putting clear bubble wrap on a pool would help to keep it cool. If the heat flow was from the water to the atmosphere, putting clear bubble wrap on a pool would help keep it warm.

[WetEV]

As far as lapse rate in the atmosphere goes, the CO2 emissions layer is in the tropopause where an increase or decrease in the height has NO effect on temperature.

I'd suggest reading a basic textbook.

"Physics of Climate", Peixoto and Oort.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-J ... 0883187124

Or perhaps your local university library.

Then you might realize why what you said makes no sense at all.

Of course, physics isn't the core of your argument.

Rather than repeating nonsense you found on some septic blog, why don't you try to explain why you don't want the physics of climate to be the way it is?

What is the implication you think you can't live with?

Physics wins in the end, of course.

You might want to reconsider your position. Before the trees bloom every year in Central Park, at Christmas time.

[GRA]

Only loosely related to the discussion, but one of my favorite quotes by a well-known climate scientist (whose name escapes me for the moment) is "All models are wrong; some are useful". Or in other words, all models (climate in this case) simplify complex and often only partially understood phenomena, and while they are inherently incomplete and 'inaccurate', they can nevertheless provide useful insight as to what is likely to occur, if they do a good job of reflecting what has actually occurred. Expecting 100% accuracy is a pipe dream.

[WetEV]

"All models are wrong; some are useful".

As I remembered, not from climate science.

George E. P. Box "Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces" (1987) page 424, according to Wikiquote. Not a climate scientist, but rather a statistician.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box

Also might read Asimov:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ ... fwrong.htm

[WetEV]

It hasn't warmed since 2017!

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/01/deni ... since.html

Oh, and a challenge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-bosl ... 86968.html

[GRA]

"All models are wrong; some are useful".

As I remembered, not from climate science.

George E. P. Box "Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces" (1987) page 424, according to Wikiquote. Not a climate scientist, but rather a statistician.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box

It seems the climate scientist I was thinking of (still can't remember his name) know's a good quote when he sees one (not that he ever claimed originality, AFAIK). Thanks for that.

Also might read Asimov:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ ... fwrong.htm

Ah, one of my favorite essays by the good doctor. I've got it in a paperback collection of his monthly articles in F&SF, http://members.aceweb.com/muffin/Books/ ... tive0.html . I've tried to find it online in the past, but couldn't. Glad to see it's there, cause now I can point people to it directly! Another of his that also appears in that collection, and which is apropos here no matter which side of the argument anyone's on, is (paraphrasing Nietzsche) "Alas, all Human": http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/9483.aspx in which he provided historical examples of scientists, often well known and even giants in their field, who got it wrong, either because they so wanted to believe something was true that they convinced themselves it was, sometimes by 'detecting' results that no one else was able to, or by 'smoothing' data; or sometimes by outright falsification or lying for reasons of ego/reputation (AFAIR not income, at least not directly, but that's obviously a factor in some cases). I'm sure we can all think of recent examples.

[RegGuheert]

CO2 has NO ability to heat the oceans and can only reduce the temperature drop of the top 1millimeter surface of the oceans by a mere 0.001K. In other words, it doesn't have any meaningful effect on the heat stored in oceans, which represents 2100X as much energy storage as the atmosphere.

That would be interesting, if the heat flow mostly was from the atmosphere to the ocean.

Please read more carefully. I did not state nor imply that the heat flows from the atmosphere to the ocean. As you well know, I have corrected statements to that effect by misguided warmists on this forum on more than one occasion.

But that's not the case.

Heat flow is mostly from the ocean (or a lake, or a swimming pool) to the atmosphere. This is something you can verify in your backyard.

If the heat flow was from the atmosphere to the water, putting clear bubble wrap on a pool would help to keep it cool. If the heat flow was from the water to the atmosphere, putting clear bubble wrap on a pool would help keep it warm.

The problem with your belief is that the effect of the CO2 is so small that it does not play a significant role in the loss of heat from the oceans. As I have explained previously here:

CO2 has virtually NO capacity to reduce the heat loss of the ocean. How little? With the ~half-doubling of CO2 we have seen in the atmosphere, the top 1mm of the ocean is 0.001C warmer than it would be otherwise. That is so little increase in sensible heat that the flow of heat from below is barely affected. Compare that with the 0.2C increase caused by clouds or the increase of over 2C caused by sunlight (which causes heat to flow the opposite direction). What that means is that a 0.1% increase in cloud cover over the oceans during the daytime is all that is needed to eliminate any ocean warming caused by CO2. But does ocean cloud cover vary that much? No, it varies by more than an order of magnitude more than that!

Those blue links are to MEASURED data that clearly indicated that CO2 has at the most reduced the temperature drop of the top millimeter of the surface of the oceans by 0.001K, while nighttime clouds reduce that drop by 200X as much and the lack of clouds (sunlight) during the daytime INCREASED the surface temperature of the water by 2000X as much. In other words, a change of cloudiness of 0.05% has the same effect as the change in CO2.

So how much does the coverage of clouds over the ocean change? It's in my quote above. The MEASURED data says they change by PERCENTS.

The simple bottom line is this:

1) The amount of heat that enters the oceans is modulated by cloud cover. CO2 has NO role to play in this process.
2) The amount of heat that is lost by the oceans is modulated primarily by cloud cover and CO2 has only a bit part to play in this process.

Clearly any heat which is released from the oceans in this, or any, El Nino was NOT put there NOR kept there by CO2. That's a belief which does not have any support in the scientific measurements.