So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.

That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?

The greenhouse effect due to water vapour is, obviously, strongest where there is the most water vapour. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as is the case in the Arctic, then the greenhouse effect that it causes will also increase. It's not rocket science.

Continuing with the non-rocket science, why is the North Pole following your explanation, but the South Pole is not?
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/polarwarming.htm

Ceist wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Ceist wrote:
e conspiracy sources, yet flat out deny/reject evidence-based facts and science.
And yes, of course climate change can cause both flooding and drought. Why would you think it wouldn't?

Because I'm not gullible.

Show me your "fact based science" that proves me wrong.

Yeah, you're gullible. And lazy too. You want me to spoonfeed you easily available information? Take some responsibility for your own education.

GasGuzzler wrote:
addressing the claim to snowstorm tracks shifting to the north....I only looked up Amarillo Texas because I know they are south but do get snow. Well looky here...nothing to see here really. How long will you continue blaming every weather condition available on global warming?

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the
1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States.

Frescomexico wrote:
Getting back to the subject of this thread: is the feedback [from CO2's greenhouse effect] positive or negative, there seems to be a number of theories and papers suggesting that it is positive. Where is the evidence that it is negative?

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

This won't effect the True Believers.

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

This won't effect the True Believers.

Who are these people?

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

It's a bit short on detail. For example, in the first experiment that he describes, he doesn't give the frequency or time of day that the readings were taken (daily? hourly? day and/or night?) or the time of year (summer? winter?).

These things are important: humid weather is more likely to be cloudy, and, while cloudy days tend to be cooler, cloudy nights tend to be milder. Also, the cooling effect of clouds is likely to be more pronounced in summer, while the warming effect is likely to predominate in winter.

More detail is needed before any conclusions can be drawn!

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

This won't effect the True Believers.

Who are these people?

You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

This won't effect the True Believers.

Who are these people?

You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.

I am hopeful that the new administration will be more unbiased in their allocation of funding to scientists who truly want to find the cause of climate change. But knowing politicians I am skeptical. More likely, they will just cut off all funding.

Those that you call true believers may continue to be so until it starts to get colder (the pause doesn't cut it with them), or until they die and it takes a jack hammer to bury them.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

This won't effect the True Believers.

Who are these people?

You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.

I am hopeful that the new administration will be more unbiased in their allocation of funding to scientists who truly want to find the cause of climate change. But knowing politicians I am skeptical. More likely, they will just cut off all funding.

Those that you call true believers may continue to be so until it starts to get colder (the pause doesn't cut it with them), or until they die and it takes a jack hammer to bury them.

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174 and
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.sWOAw4TW.dpbs

As you can see the data is so hopelessly counterfeited that we do not have the slightest idea what the climate is actually doing.

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases
containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

The sum result of this data demonstrates that there is no climate change beyond the recovery from the little ice age and normal cyclic weather variations.

So there is no climate change. It is mostly nothing but a figment of the imagination of man with his short lifespan compared to climate with it's millennia long patterns.

Surface Detail wrote:
blah blah blah blah

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
blah blah blah blah

Is your walker giving you trouble again today?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
An interesting article on the negative feedback subject is:

http://principia-scientific.org/proven-negative-water-feedback-means-co2-climate-impact-irrelevant/

This won't effect the True Believers.

Who are these people?

You can see four of them here. litesong who is so insane that he is answering himself and no one pays any attention to him. Spot, Surface Decal and Ceist who are intelligent but HAVE to prove they are right and that the human race is doomed to a fiery death of his own manufacture.

No amount of proof will allow them to believe that they worship a false God.

There are entire "Climate Change Forum" sites which do not even ALLOW any "deniers". And most of them are not even open to publishing scientific papers and nothing else to disprove their theories. They will attack you. On one site the "moderator" argues that I'm incorrect when I say that fuel cells are carbon neutral because it requires power to separate hydrogen from water to fuel these vehicles. Then he claims that lithium is cheap and common despite the fact that the most common form of lithium is not water soluble and most of the lithium being mined is via a method of pumping water far down into the earth, allowing it to pick up a soluble form and then pumping it out and onto a lake bed where it takes between six months and 3 years to dry out to the point where it has to be processed. The insoluble form is taken from HUGE open pit mines (some a mile or more in diameter and a mile deep.) as part of mining other materials. And the processing of that is equally energy intensive.

Or you can have a dozen people attack you saying EXACTLY the same thing and the moderator says nothing but if you make the same claim with studies showing it to be true he will cut your posting because you are "repeating".

This is the climate "science" and the True Believers that will ALL talk as if you question them you are a stupid fool.

And then they wonder why research funding is being cut by at least a fifth and more cuts to come.

I am hopeful that the new administration will be more unbiased in their allocation of funding to scientists who truly want to find the cause of climate change. But knowing politicians I am skeptical. More likely, they will just cut off all funding.

Those that you call true believers may continue to be so until it starts to get colder (the pause doesn't cut it with them), or until they die and it takes a jack hammer to bury them.

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174 and
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.sWOAw4TW.dpbs

As you can see the data is so hopelessly counterfeited that we do not have the slightest idea what the climate is actually doing.

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases
containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

The sum result of this data demonstrates that there is no climate change beyond the recovery from the little ice age and normal cyclic weather variations.

So there is no climate change. It is mostly nothing but a figment of the imagination of man with his short lifespan compared to climate with it's millennia long patterns.

I've already pointed out to you that that "paper" is nonsense. The claim that there is a "common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands" is simply wrong. Nobody is making this claim.

Edit: And your links to media sites and blogs mean nothing - I could just as easily link to a string of media sites and blogs saying the opposite. The only reliable sources of scientific information are papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and material based on such papers.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex's" muffed: Were they not to corroborate the paper, they might sink the whole AGW boat.

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174 and
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.sWOAw4TW.dpbs

As you can see the data is so hopelessly counterfeited that we do not have the slightest idea what the climate is actually doing.

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases
containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

The sum result of this data demonstrates that there is no climate change beyond the recovery from the little ice age and normal cyclic weather variations.

So there is no climate change. It is mostly nothing but a figment of the imagination of man with his short lifespan compared to climate with it's millennia long patterns.

I've already pointed out to you that that "paper" is nonsense. The claim that there is a "common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands" is simply wrong. Nobody is making this claim.

Edit: And your links to media sites and blogs mean nothing - I could just as easily link to a string of media sites and blogs saying the opposite. The only reliable sources of scientific information are papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and material based on such papers.

The problem with these "peer-reviewed" scientific journals is that the "peers" are riding in the same boat as the authors. Were they not to corroborate the paper, they might sink the whole AGW boat.

This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
blah blah blah blah

Is your walker giving you trouble again today?

I see you've given up any pretence of actual discussion. No surprises there.

Frescomexico wrote:
@Litesong

I'm sorry, I could have saved you that long diatribe by explaining that most observers don't contest that the planet is now warming. The question is what is causing the warming, how much longer will the warming last, and how warm will it get. It is because of this that I originally posed the question that is the subject of this thread.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Next....

Heat waves have generally become more frequent and intense across the
United States in recent decades, particularly in the western United
States

litesong wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Next....

Heat waves have generally become more frequent and intense across the
United States in recent decades, particularly in the western United
States

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/hurricanes-and-typhoons

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Next....

Heat waves have generally become more frequent and intense across the
United States in recent decades, particularly in the western United
States

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/hurricanes-and-typhoons

Why would I read bloomberg for info on intensity and frequency of hurricanes?

Guess I have to dig up this graph again.

"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: Litesong

I'm sorry, I could have saved you that long diatribe by explaining that most observers don't contest that the planet is now warming. The question is what is causing the warming...

GasGuzzler wrote:
You do know how to read the graph right? The yellow lines are simply named storms. With better technology, you'll see an increase in these because they don't have to send a flight crew out to see if it meets criteria. They can name it from the weather lab. Major hurricanes look pretty steady from 1935 and on, and sharply declining the last decade....supposedly the warmest period. Mmmm.

Here, try this one.

GasGuzzler wrote:
They are both NOAA

GasGuzzler wrote:
admittedly done on the fly...sneaking into my office to catch a break from cleaning now and then. The wife is on fire! Getting the house ready for a neihborhood party tonight. Back when I can....

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
admittedly done on the fly...sneaking into my office to catch a break from cleaning now and then. The wife is on fire! Getting the house ready for a neihborhood party tonight. Back when I can....

Heh, real life intervenes. Tell your wife the cleaning can wait - someone is wrong on the internet and your attention is urgently needed!



Just kidding. Enjoy the party!

GasGuzzler wrote:
Here, try this one.

Surface Detail wrote:
Shouldn't "Number of hurricanes" be an integer value, as it is in the first graph? And why the difference in numbers between the two graphs?

All three curves have been smoothed using a five-year average, plotted at the middle year. The most recent average (2010–2014) is plotted at 2012.