golfcart
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:24 pm

I think what is getting lost here is that ghg's impact climate over extremely long time scales where things like clouds vary over short scales. So yes, clouds do have a larger impact on retained heat than co2 at any given location at a specific point in time, but it really isn't an apples to apples comparison due to the timescales over which these forgings act. Yes, a night with low stratus blanketing the area will inhibit radiative cooling much more than the co2 humans have added to the atmosphere in that area... but over the course of thousands of nights over the entire globe the variability of cloud cover evens out while the co2 rises day after day and year after year ( at least it has been since we began measuring about 60 years ago).

Image

The general relationship between co2 (and other ghg's) and the radiative balance of the planet is pretty well understood and has been for a while. Here is a simple model

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mple-model

Now to be fair, the net impact of clouds is probably the largest source of uncertainty in climate science and the scientists will admit that. The community really doesn't know with certainty how clouds will change in response to other changes in the climate. Simple things like the type of cloud, optical depth, reflectivity, cloud height, and even droplet size can impact whether or not a cloud has a net warming or cooling impact overall. The latest IPCC report discusses these various feedbacks in depth. Here is a link to a relevant FAQ and the ability to browse the rest of the report...

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da ... q-2-1.html

I will agree that the science community does a poor job of admitting and explaining these uncertainties. And I will also agree that an alarmist media oversells what we can conclusively link to anthropogenic warming. And ill also agree that self righteous "activists" that fly all over the world telling everyone else that they need to cut back are annoying as f#ck. That said, the accepted consensus of the science community is that the amount of long-lived ghg's we are adding to the system will be the dominant driver of changes in climate over the next few hundred years even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow.
2018 SV

WetEV
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:48 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
WetEV wrote:Exactly the way that a coat does not transfer heat to you. But the coat still keeps you warm.

Go outside on a cold day carrying your coat. Starting to get cold, eh? Now put the coat on. The coat is heated by your body, and doesn't heat your body, but you get warmer, right?
That's exactly right. And since heat is flowing from your body to the surface, you would measure a HIGHER temperature at the surface of your skin with the coat on versus without. This higher temperature would also tell you that the flow of heat from inside the body to the surface had slowed.
Exactly. And as skin is rather less thermally conductive than water, the temperature difference would be rather larger.

If there was a layer of water on your skin, with the same thermal properties as ocean water, on the other hand, what would the temperature difference across that layer be?
RegGuheert wrote:The fallacy that you have been lead to believe ...
I challenged you to provide a working counterexample(s) to mainstream climate physics. Any time you are ready:

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.

The reason why you might not be interested in these topics is that you are interested in finding a "case to disprove climate change", and have exactly no interest in the physics of climate and weather. Is that true?
F. A. Hayek wrote:Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
So what is your moral case to reject well-substantiated climate science? (and hardly new, as this was old stuff when I was born, and I'm almost as old as dirt)

You do realize, of course, that the time you can continue do so is limited to at most a few decades.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:39 am

Since the measurements clearly do not support your claim that CO2 is like a "coat" over the Earth's oceans,, let's refer to it as the "The Emperor's New Coat". You have faith in something which the measurements show simply isn't so.

So I guess it is time to try change the discussion to models since you cannot defend your beliefs? I just provided links to an extremely-detailed analysis of the models by a top modelling expert which explains, in detail, the major issues which exist with the current models as well as corrections to the model. This corrected model clearly points to clouds as the primary driver to climate.

It has always been so.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:08 am

golfcart wrote:... but over the course of thousands of nights over the entire globe the variability of cloud cover evens out while the co2 rises day after day and year after year ( at least it has been since we began measuring about 60 years ago).
Your belief that cloud cover evens out is a statement of faith with absolutely NO experimental evidence to back it up. Correlation of rising CO2 concentrations with (previously) rising temperatures does not imply causation. Frankly, the belief that the water cycle must represent a net positive feedback mechanism in terms of rising temperatures is ridiculous. The Earth would have burned up long ago if that were the case. The water cycle clearly provides a negative feedback mechanism. (Anyone who does not believe that is encouraged to move to any desert at the same latitude in order to cool off.)

The point is that only a *slight* change in cloud cover compensates for huge changes in CO2. How slight is a valid topic for debate.

It is instructional here to plot global cloud cover anomalies together with global temperature anomalies:

Image

That's a plot which people should be looking at daily since it likely explains the DOMINANT factor for the the Earth's temperature.
golfcart wrote:The general relationship between co2 (and other ghg's) and the radiative balance of the planet is pretty well understood and has been for a while. Here is a simple model

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mple-model
You might be interested to look carefully at the references upthread in which significant problem with this simple model have been identified and corrected by an expert modeller.
golfcart wrote:Now to be fair, the net impact of clouds is probably the largest source of uncertainty in climate science and the scientists will admit that. The community really doesn't know with certainty how clouds will change in response to other changes in the climate. Simple things like the type of cloud, optical depth, reflectivity, cloud height, and even droplet size can impact whether or not a cloud has a net warming or cooling impact overall. The latest IPCC report discusses these various feedbacks in depth. Here is a link to a relevant FAQ and the ability to browse the rest of the report...

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da ... q-2-1.html

I will agree that the science community does a poor job of admitting and explaining these uncertainties. And I will also agree that an alarmist media oversells what we can conclusively link to anthropogenic warming. And ill also agree that self righteous "activists" that fly all over the world telling everyone else that they need to cut back are annoying as f#ck.
No argument with all of that. Our knowledge of the clouds is very primitive at this point. We have only recently established a physical link between cosmic rays and cloud formation (one of many influences on clouds). This link provides a *real* mechanism for the Sun's activity to have impacts on our climate. As we enter a new era of lower solar activity and therefore higher cosmic rays, we should expect that cooling should follow:
Image

Note that during the peak of solar cycle 24, the cosmic ray activity dropped ONLY to the historical average. How big is the impact of cosmic rays. It is big enough to have measurable impacts on cloud cover during Forbush events. Only very small changes in cloud cover will have have real impacts on the Earth's temperature. If this is indeed the dominant effect controlling temperature of the Earth, then we need to worried about cooling rather than warming going forward. And cooling is MUCH worse than warming.
golfcart wrote:That said, the accepted consensus of the science community is that the amount of long-lived ghg's we are adding to the system will be the dominant driver of changes in climate over the next few hundred years even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow.
Unfortunately, the scientific community finds itself with models which cannot predict, nor even hindcast, what is happening. As usual, the scientific consensus is almost certainly wrong in this case.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

golfcart
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:43 am

RegGuheert wrote:Your belief that cloud cover evens out is a statement of faith with absolutely NO experimental evidence to back it up. Correlation of rising CO2 concentrations with (previously) rising temperatures does not imply causation.
I'm not arguing that we know clouds even out for sure, it is impossible to make that statement given that we only have a short record of cloud data to study. What I am saying is the following:

1) Clouds are highly variable and absent some specific mechanism which causes clouds to not even out over the long term there is no reason to assume that they don't. We do measure global cloud cover and cloud type with instruments like CERES and this topic is studied. It is an area of uncertainty but not something we are directly in control of like our emissions.

2) The scientific consensus that LLGHG's impact the energy balance of the planet is not in question. Even the biggest anthropogenic warming skeptic with a basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry and thermodynamics will at least acknowledge that all things equal, more LLGHGs lead to a warmer plant due to their impact on the energy balance. That basic model has not been debunked in any way, I am not sure what you are talking about when you say that. I just have to assume you didn't actually read the link I posted because your reply or link provided in no way refutes it.

3) We do have direct measurement that LLGHG's (particularly CO2, CH4, N20) are increasing due to human activities. And we also know the general magnitude of the forcing caused by this increase.

4) It is the most prudent course of action to act based on what we do know and can control (CO2, CH4, N2O) and not some variable we cannot control and do not understand well how to predict (cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes) in deciding policy and what to plan for.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need a better understanding of clouds and how they impact the climate. So does the climate community

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprin ... Slingo.pdf

but the lack of precision in our understanding of one aspect of the system is not cause to ignore the other aspects that we do understand well. Unless you have some concrete mechanism by which you can understand and predict how clouds will change over time it does not make sense to base your entire argument on clouds being the dominant force in the climate. Clouds are variable both in time and space and are impacted by everything from moisture to aerosols to temperature... nothing you have provided shows that clouds are driving warming trends rather than just reacting to them.

You have established no causality either. All you have argued is that large changes in clouds COULD drive changes in the climate. Correlation is not causation in the clouds case either... it runs both ways. At least the LLGHG forcing is measured, we know why it is increasing, and the laws of thermodynamics easily establish it's basic impact. We can't control or predict clouds on a global scale over long periods of time. Trenberth et. al. talk about this in a recent paper and discuss the TOA impacts.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 22887/full

I've done the math (basic radiative balance equations), I've look at the available evidence, and I choose to believe that the sum total of evidence is strong enough to conclude that LLGHG emissions by humans are sufficient to impact the climate and those impacts should be planned for. You are welcome to interpret the evidence how you want to... but the vast majority of the scientific community, the military, the insurance industry, and most governments disagree with you. But keep fighting the good fight if that is what you honestly believe to be true, I would do the same if it were me.
2018 SV

NeilBlanchard
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:02 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Oct 2014
Leaf Number: 306278

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:11 am

RegGuheert wrote:Since the measurements clearly do not support your claim that CO2 is like a "coat" over the Earth's oceans,, let's refer to it as the "The Emperor's New Coat". You have faith in something which the measurements show simply isn't so.
What are you talking about?

You are the outlier in this thread, and you are making extraordinary claims. Put up, or shut up, please.

Science is not a matter of faith.

Stoaty
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:26 pm

"We Just Lived In The Hottest Year On Record"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/0 ... ar-record/

Still warming after all these years.
2011 Leaf with 62,000 miles given to Nephew
2013 Tesla Model S85 with 251 miles rated range at full charge
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet

WetEV
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:57 am

RegGuheert wrote:Since the measurements clearly do not support your claim that CO2 is like a "coat" over the Earth's oceans, let's refer to it as the "The Emperor's New Coat". You have faith in something which the measurements show simply isn't so.
I notice again that you are ignoring problems in your case, and again claiming victory.

Good salesmanship. Good for an advocate. Great for a politician. Bad science.

Notice again the three challanges to you that you ignored yet again. I challenged you to provide a working counterexample(s) to mainstream climate physics. Any time you are ready:

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.

The reason why you might not be interested in these topics is that you are interested in finding a "case to disprove climate change", and have exactly no interest in the physics of climate and weather. Is that true?

Oh, and the MSU/AMSU and " HORRIBLE job of hindcasting temperatures of both"?

Several issues with this: The temperature of the surface isn't the same thing that the MSU/AMSU measures. Why compare a surface temperature prediction against an estimated temperature from much higher altitude? (Another question you will not answer)

The MSU/AMSU measures a microwave brightness at specific frequencies to estimate temperature over a broad range of altitudes. The closest real temperature measurement to this estimate is the weather balloon based temperature record.

The MSU portion of this is fairly well correlated for trends with the balloon record, at least after four (4) revisions to the MSU estimated temperatures to correct for errors caused by orbital changes.

The AMSU portion is not as well correlated with the weather balloon records. Comparing the two, the weather balloons measure temperature directly with a thermometer, which can be checked for accuracy in a long list of ways, starting with an ice and water bath. The AMSU measures microwave brightness, which is converted into a temperature estimate by a complex model, and has no simple way to verify accuracy.

The surface and 500 MB altitude in the balloon record set an all time high in 2015. The top of the atmosphere, 30 MB and 50 MB, set all time lows in 2015, exactly what would be expected if the atmosphere is becoming a better "coat".

The 850 MB altitude in the balloon record shows 0.71C above the reference period, just slightly missing a record as 2005 was at 0.72C.

All of the lower altitudes show warming over the AMSU period, and the AMSU does not show warming.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

WetEV
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:36 am

RegGuheert wrote:Frankly, the belief that the water cycle must represent a net positive feedback mechanism in terms of rising temperatures is ridiculous. The Earth would have burned up long ago if that were the case. The water cycle clearly provides a negative feedback mechanism. (Anyone who does not believe that is encouraged to move to any desert at the same latitude in order to cool off.)
Amusing. Anyone that thinks that water cycle provides a negative feedback is challenged to provide a weather model that has negative feedback from water, unlike current weather models, that reproduces weather better than weather current models.

Frost and freezing temperatures are not uncommon in many deserts. For example, Tel Aviv vs Amman, January 2014.

Amman, Jordan (max avg min)
Max Temperature 68 °F 59 °F 47 °F
Mean Temperature 56 °F 50 °F 43 °F
Min Temperature 48 °F 41 °F 33 °F

Tel Aviv, Israel
Max Temperature 78 °F 67 °F 62 °F
Mean Temperature 68 °F 60 °F 56 °F
Min Temperature 59 °F 53 °F 48 °F

Looks like the more desert (Amman) of these two is cooler over this month.
Oh, you say, but that's winter? What about summer? July, 2014.

Amman, Jordan (max avg min)
Max Temperature 97 °F 88 °F 82 °F
Mean Temperature 86 °F 78 °F 60 °F
Min Temperature 76 °F 68 °F 35 °F

Tel Aviv, Israel
Max Temperature 87 °F 86 °F 84 °F
Mean Temperature 83 °F 82 °F 80 °F
Min Temperature 80 °F 77 °F 75 °F

Sure, the summer is hotter in Amman, both for peak and mean. But look at that 35F minimum in July, and generally cooler minimum temperatures.
(Source is http://www.wunderground.com )
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

WetEV
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:30 pm

The "pause" is dead. If there really ever was a pause.

Image

Oh, but I know. A new pause just started, with the high point in February.

Image
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Return to “Politics & Other Controversial Topics”