Comments on: Greenhouse Thermodynamics and GCMs http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/ The Power of Numeracy Wed, 16 May 2012 18:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Government Out Of Control: EPA Rejects Climate Change Challenge | motorcitytimes.com http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4273 Government Out Of Control: EPA Rejects Climate Change Challenge | motorcitytimes.com Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:21:11 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4273 [...] feedback loop, is not really happening either. (Note EGE= Enhanced Greenhouse Effect). Via Niche Modeling: While MD07 explains increasing specific humidity and falling relative humidity, and a positive [...] [...] feedback loop, is not really happening either. (Note EGE= Enhanced Greenhouse Effect). Via Niche Modeling: While MD07 explains increasing specific humidity and falling relative humidity, and a positive [...]

]]> By: Climate Change Policy | BipolarNation.com http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4272 Climate Change Policy | BipolarNation.com Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:30:52 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4272 [...] for man-caused global warming.  But the observable data shows that this is not the case.  As you can see, the temperatures aren’t rising anywhere except in the [...] [...] for man-caused global warming.  But the observable data shows that this is not the case.  As you can see, the temperatures aren’t rising anywhere except in the [...]

]]> By: Fresh Bilge » Twisters http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4271 Fresh Bilge » Twisters Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:28:47 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4271 [...] * Impossible, but warmists keep trying. Posted at 6:18 AM | | [...] [...] * Impossible, but warmists keep trying. Posted at 6:18 AM | | [...]

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4270 admin Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:33:31 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4270 #8 Yes, and these and similar arguments are only indirect. Here I am looking for the direct evidence of EGE that the IPCC claims it has, but any direct evidence will do. Indirect evidence always allows other explanations. It is striking to me that all of the article laying out the argument for CO2 warming, like <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html" rel="nofollow"> Dr. Tapio Schneider</a> in Skeptic Magazine lay out indirect evidence, but only make assertions when it comes to direct evidence. They would have to do that if there was no direct evidence of AGW. The opinion of Dr Sodon on the matter is not direct evidence. The spectroscopic measurements the IPCC claims are the crucial direct evidence of increased feedback are from Sodon's own work, and he is the lead author on the chapter, so he could not be regarded as impartial judge of the importance of his own work. #8 Yes, and these and similar arguments are only indirect. Here I am looking for the direct evidence of EGE that the IPCC claims it has, but any direct evidence will do. Indirect evidence always allows other explanations.

It is striking to me that all of the article laying out the argument for CO2 warming, like
Dr. Tapio Schneider in Skeptic Magazine lay out indirect evidence, but only make assertions when it comes to direct evidence. They would have to do that if there was no direct evidence of AGW.

The opinion of Dr Sodon on the matter is not direct evidence. The spectroscopic measurements the IPCC claims are the crucial direct evidence of increased feedback are from Sodon’s own work, and he is the lead author on the chapter, so he could not be regarded as impartial judge of the importance of his own work.

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-7283 admin Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:33:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-7283 #8 Yes, and these and similar arguments are only indirect. Here I am looking for the direct evidence of EGE that the IPCC claims it has, but any direct evidence will do. Indirect evidence always allows other explanations. It is striking to me that all of the article laying out the argument for CO2 warming, like <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html" rel="nofollow"> Dr. Tapio Schneider</a> in Skeptic Magazine lay out indirect evidence, but only make assertions when it comes to direct evidence. They would have to do that if there was no direct evidence of AGW. The opinion of Dr Sodon on the matter is not direct evidence. The spectroscopic measurements the IPCC claims are the crucial direct evidence of increased feedback are from Sodon's own work, and he is the lead author on the chapter, so he could not be regarded as impartial judge of the importance of his own work. #8 Yes, and these and similar arguments are only indirect. Here I am looking for the direct evidence of EGE that the IPCC claims it has, but any direct evidence will do. Indirect evidence always allows other explanations.

It is striking to me that all of the article laying out the argument for CO2 warming, like
Dr. Tapio Schneider in Skeptic Magazine lay out indirect evidence, but only make assertions when it comes to direct evidence. They would have to do that if there was no direct evidence of AGW.

The opinion of Dr Sodon on the matter is not direct evidence. The spectroscopic measurements the IPCC claims are the crucial direct evidence of increased feedback are from Sodon’s own work, and he is the lead author on the chapter, so he could not be regarded as impartial judge of the importance of his own work.

]]> By: Andrew http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4269 Andrew Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:34:58 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4269 Chris Colose said "it is hard to reconcile the 20th century record or the paleoclimatic record with a WV feedback significantly less than we think." This claim just won't die, will it? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032759.shtml http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml Chris Colose said
“it is hard to reconcile the 20th century record or the paleoclimatic record with a WV feedback significantly less than we think.”

This claim just won’t die, will it?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032759.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml

]]> By: Andrew http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-7282 Andrew Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:34:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-7282 Chris Colose said "it is hard to reconcile the 20th century record or the paleoclimatic record with a WV feedback significantly less than we think." This claim just won't die, will it? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032759.shtml http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml Chris Colose said
“it is hard to reconcile the 20th century record or the paleoclimatic record with a WV feedback significantly less than we think.”

This claim just won’t die, will it?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032759.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4268 admin Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:19:15 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4268 FYI from Lubos: "But I found it so insightful that you might enjoy it, too. It discusses the importance of feedbacks, why most of them are negative, and what contrived things you have to assume if you want to believe that climate sensitivity significantly exceeds 1 °C." http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/coyoteblog-dont-panic.html FYI from Lubos: “But I found it so insightful that you might enjoy it, too. It discusses the importance of feedbacks, why most of them are negative, and what contrived things you have to assume if you want to believe that climate sensitivity significantly exceeds 1 °C.”

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/coyoteblog-dont-panic.html

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-7281 admin Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:19:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-7281 FYI from Lubos: "But I found it so insightful that you might enjoy it, too. It discusses the importance of feedbacks, why most of them are negative, and what contrived things you have to assume if you want to believe that climate sensitivity significantly exceeds 1 °C." http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/coyoteblog-dont-panic.html FYI from Lubos: “But I found it so insightful that you might enjoy it, too. It discusses the importance of feedbacks, why most of them are negative, and what contrived things you have to assume if you want to believe that climate sensitivity significantly exceeds 1 °C.”

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/coyoteblog-dont-panic.html

]]> By: Chris Colose http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4267 Chris Colose Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:37:52 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/#comment-4267 admin, the issues with the reanalysis data are extensively discussed in IPCC Chapter 3 as you noted, as well as the supplementary information available online, and in references therein. Without opening up some links (I'm going to bed now, sorry), I don't want to give numbers off of the top of my head, but based on the IPCC's discussion of humidity trends in the upper atmosphere (and my own personal correspondence with Soden, where he uses the term "useless") it can't be too good. On the flipside, I can't just create a graph with random numbers and then ask people why it is wrong, I need to demonstrate with some degree of confidence that I am right...and we cannot now do that with the older data, and even with reanalysis data post-satellite era. Surface-air temperatures are a different climatic variable, and one that I put a lot of confidence in for older data given a relaible global instrumental record after 1850. Still, even this has some problems including SST measurements and southern hemispheric data. Actually, MD just look around 11 to 14 kilometers from the surface of the Earth and just in the tropics. The overall contribution here is quite small. See Soden and Held 2000. You can also find various quotes around the internet from scientists like Lindzen, Sherwood, Pierrehumbert, and others agreeing with that (NASA has a good page if you google the authors names) I do not read sites like "john-daly.com" so if there is something in the literature you want to discuss, I will see what they have to say. I wouldn't be surprised to see the magnitude of the WV feedback slightly altered as time goes on given the uncertanties of the contributions in the upper atmosphere, but it is hard to reconcile the 20th century record or the paleoclimatic record with a WV feedback significantly less than we think. admin,

the issues with the reanalysis data are extensively discussed in IPCC Chapter 3 as you noted, as well as the supplementary information available online, and in references therein. Without opening up some links (I’m going to bed now, sorry), I don’t want to give numbers off of the top of my head, but based on the IPCC’s discussion of humidity trends in the upper atmosphere (and my own personal correspondence with Soden, where he uses the term “useless”) it can’t be too good. On the flipside, I can’t just create a graph with random numbers and then ask people why it is wrong, I need to demonstrate with some degree of confidence that I am right…and we cannot now do that with the older data, and even with reanalysis data post-satellite era. Surface-air temperatures are a different climatic variable, and one that I put a lot of confidence in for older data given a relaible global instrumental record after 1850. Still, even this has some problems including SST measurements and southern hemispheric data.

Actually, MD just look around 11 to 14 kilometers from the surface of the Earth and just in the tropics. The overall contribution here is quite small. See Soden and Held 2000. You can also find various quotes around the internet from scientists like Lindzen, Sherwood, Pierrehumbert, and others agreeing with that (NASA has a good page if you google the authors names)

I do not read sites like “john-daly.com” so if there is something in the literature you want to discuss, I will see what they have to say. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the magnitude of the WV feedback slightly altered as time goes on given the uncertanties of the contributions in the upper atmosphere, but it is hard to reconcile the 20th century record or the paleoclimatic record with a WV feedback significantly less than we think.

]]>