So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?

Surface Detail wrote:The most important positive feedback effect comes from water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas and whose average concentration in the atmosphere is proportional to temperature. A rise in CO2 concentration causes a small rise in temperature, which increases the water vapour concentration, which further increases temperature. If CO2 is the hand on the climate wheel, then water vapour is the power steering.

The most important positive feedback effect comes from water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas

A rise in CO2 concentration causes a small rise in temperature, which increases the water vapour concentration, which further increases temperature

If CO2 is the hand on the climate wheel, then water vapour is the power steering.

Empirical evidence for this comes from both palaeoclimatology and the temperature rise already observed in recent times.

Ice core records show the temperature changing by significant amounts between deep ice age and interglacial periods, very closely correlated with the CO2

"gaslighter" wrote:

A rise in CO2 concentration causes a small rise in temperature, which increases the water vapour concentration, which further increases temperature

.
How can this be when air that is moisture laden heats much slower than dry air?
How much more water can the air hold at 1 degree? Insignificant.

Why do you keep parroting this idiotic claim that only 3.2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made? What possible justification can there be for this?

We know that CO2 levels had been roughly constant at about 280 ppm over the past 10,000 years, we know that they started to rise at an increasing rate with the start of the industrial revolution, and know that human emissions have been more than sufficient to account for the rise to, currently, 405 ppm.

It is utterly illogical to claim that the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 405 ppm is due to some other unidentified cause, when the very obvious fact of human CO2 emissions easily accounts for it.

GasGuzzler wrote:
You did see the graph from the DOE right?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Don't be so gullible. That graph isn't really from the DOE. It's simply been fabricated by some denier. You think it is real? Then show me how the 3.2% figure depicted in the graph has been determined.

I get it. ANYTHING can easily be manipulated (see sources for chart below

)

That is why I quoted your figures, thought it would make you happy but you're just all hacked off.

You still want to squabble over less than 1% man contribution to CHGs?

Why quote the graph if you know that it's false? It doesn't exactly enhance your credibility.

Your second mistake is to confuse the increase in the greenhouse effect with the total greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is responsible for the Earth being about 33 C warming than it would otherwise be, not 1 C. So if you increase the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect by 1%, you raise the temperature by about 0.33 C, not 0.01 C.

GasGuzzler wrote:

And the 1%....is it 100% negative or positive?

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

And the 1%....is it 100% negative or positive?

What a silly question, with a rather obvious answer. I wonder what GasGuzzer is trying to achieve by asking it.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Why quote the graph if you know that it's false? It doesn't exactly enhance your credibility.

I didn't say I knew it to be false. You did. I was very clear when I said the graph has disappeared off the web. ANYTHING can be manipulated, including the data YOU trust. I simply threw it out there to show that at one time the chart was available online and now mysteriously it is not. Was the chart false? Was the DOE asked to take it down by the previous administration? Is that at least plausible?

GasGuzzler wrote:
...and this has my gears turning. I saw Surface Decal say this earlier and here it is in Wikilpedia. The idea that air will heat farther with more water vapor content is just not true.
This goes against anything I've ever learned and OBSERVED. I get it that the moisture laden air will hold the heat longer, but it will not get hotter. Why is it hotter in the desert than somewhere at the same latitude where there is more moisture?



Water vapor feedback[edit]
Main article: Water vapor feedback
If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[44] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[58] Considered a faster feedback mechanism.[48]

Frescomexico wrote:
This may be dated, but I have found nothing more recent to dispute or modify it:
Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
December 27, 2008 (last modified December 29, 2008)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

In this paper Dr. Spencer concludes "The bottom line from the model and observational evidence presented here is that:

Net feedbacks in the real climate system — on both short and long time scales — are probably negative. A misinterpretation of cloud behavior has led climate modelers to build models in which cloud feedbacks are instead positive, which has led the models to predict too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."

This would indicate that the subject debate is not settled.

Humidity is necessary to block the sun's heat, and without it, the temperatures at peak are capable of reaching 49°
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/10/28/why-do-deserts-experience-such-severe-temperature-changes/

Frescomexico wrote:
Throughout history famous scientists have had unusual (silly?) religious beliefs. That field isn't settled either. Judge the paper on its own merits.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Here ya go Spot, just the first of many I found, but here's a quote from this article. I don't expect you would understand heat and humidity living where you do. I'd think you'd welcome some warming.

Humidity is necessary to block the sun's heat, and without it, the temperatures at peak are capable of reaching 49°
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/10/28/why-do-deserts-experience-such-severe-temperature-changes/

GasGuzzler wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Throughout history famous scientists have had unusual (silly?) religious beliefs. That field isn't settled either. Judge the paper on its own merits.

If you've ever read Genesis, you'll read that God created the heaven and earth, and later created Adam and Eve with age.

If He created man with age then the universe could also be created with age. So in my opinion, I have no problem with science and religion going hand in hand.

Quite sure I'll catch hell for this post......

GasGuzzler wrote:
Air.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Da?

Frescomexico wrote:
Last week, in another thread, I questioned the effect on climate of increasing concentrations of CO2 by itself without feedback. Although, as is typical, the thread did not stay on the subject, I learned that CO2 has a logarithmic greenhouse relationship with temperature. This means that, by itself, CO2 increases would have an ever lessening effect on global temperature. And I understand that scientists agree that that effect would not be threatening.

However the kicker is that many (most?) climate scientists think that the agreed temperature increase due to increasing CO2 will trigger positive feedback from other components of the atmosphere, a tipping point where global temperatures will spiral upward to threatening levels.

My question is what empirical scientific evidence is there for positive, negative, or no feedback?

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Da?

And do you know what "my side" is claiming that we are doing?

spot wrote:
I'm not saying that he's eccentric I'm saying that he is dishonest.

Judging it on the papers merit; I notice in the first few paragraphs in he claims; "Since computerized climate models are the main source of concern over manmade global warming.".


Which begs the question just how exactly did Svante Arrhenius do his work without a computer? How did Guy Stewart Callendar reach his conclusions?

Please answer these questions because I am confused computers weren't invented back then. Is the good Dr unaware of the work that these two did?

Also The ice is melting the corral reefs are bleaching and species are moving out of there traditional ranges, we are measuring not modeling increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 levels.

I know this, does Dr Spencer, Do you?

Frescomexico wrote:
This may be dated, but I have found nothing more recent to dispute or modify it:
Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
December 27, 2008 (last modified December 29, 2008)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

In this paper Dr. Spencer concludes "The bottom line from the model and observational evidence presented here is that:

Net feedbacks in the real climate system — on both short and long time scales — are probably negative. A misinterpretation of cloud behavior has led climate modelers to build models in which cloud feedbacks are instead positive, which has led the models to predict too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."

This would indicate that the subject debate is not settled.

Surface Detail wrote:
The most important positive feedback effect comes from water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas and whose average concentration in the atmosphere is proportional to temperature. A rise in CO2 concentration causes a small rise in temperature, which increases the water vapour concentration, which further increases temperature. If CO2 is the hand on the climate wheel, then water vapour is the power steering.

Empirical evidence for this comes from both palaeoclimatology and the temperature rise already observed in recent times. Ice core records show the temperature changing by significant amounts between deep ice age and interglacial periods, very closely correlated with the CO2 concentrations. By themselves, the changes in CO2 concentration could not have brought about such large changes. They also show increased amounts of dust during the colder phases, suggesting a dryer as well as colder world.

Another important feedback is ice albedo. Ice tends to reflect solar radiation, keeping the Earth cool. As CO2 emissions warm the planet, the ice melts, thus allowing more radiation to be absorbed and further warming the planet. Empirical evidence for this comes from direct observations of the amounts of radiation absorbed by ice and water.

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The most important positive feedback effect comes from water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas and whose average concentration in the atmosphere is proportional to temperature. A rise in CO2 concentration causes a small rise in temperature, which increases the water vapour concentration, which further increases temperature. If CO2 is the hand on the climate wheel, then water vapour is the power steering.

Empirical evidence for this comes from both palaeoclimatology and the temperature rise already observed in recent times. Ice core records show the temperature changing by significant amounts between deep ice age and interglacial periods, very closely correlated with the CO2 concentrations. By themselves, the changes in CO2 concentration could not have brought about such large changes. They also show increased amounts of dust during the colder phases, suggesting a dryer as well as colder world.

Another important feedback is ice albedo. Ice tends to reflect solar radiation, keeping the Earth cool. As CO2 emissions warm the planet, the ice melts, thus allowing more radiation to be absorbed and further warming the planet. Empirical evidence for this comes from direct observations of the amounts of radiation absorbed by ice and water.

Surface Detail, Thanks for this answer to my question. I am seeking more knowledge on both sides of the climate debate, and your input is highly instrumental. After reading it, there seems to still be room for another interpretation of your feedbacks.

In the first evidence, the phrase correlation do

Thanks again for your reply and the knowledge it brought.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Why quote the graph if you know that it's false? It doesn't exactly enhance your credibility.

I didn't say I knew it to be false. You did. I was very clear when I said the graph has disappeared off the web. ANYTHING can be manipulated, including the data YOU trust. I simply threw it out there to show that at one time the chart was available online and now mysteriously it is not. Was the chart false? Was the DOE asked to take it down by the previous administration? Is that at least plausible?

Your second mistake is to confuse the increase in the greenhouse effect with the total greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is responsible for the Earth being about 33 C warming than it would otherwise be, not 1 C. So if you increase the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect by 1%, you raise the temperature by about 0.33 C, not 0.01 C.

And the 1%....is it 100% negative or positive?

Ceist wrote:
That chart would not have been from the DOE website. Can you provide a link to the actual website where you got it?

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:
I'm not saying that he's eccentric I'm saying that he is dishonest.

Judging it on the papers merit; I notice in the first few paragraphs in he claims; "Since computerized climate models are the main source of concern over manmade global warming.".


Which begs the question just how exactly did Svante Arrhenius do his work without a computer? How did Guy Stewart Callendar reach his conclusions?

Please answer these questions because I am confused computers weren't invented back then. Is the good Dr unaware of the work that these two did?

Also The ice is melting the corral reefs are bleaching and species are moving out of there traditional ranges, we are measuring not modeling increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 levels.

I know this, does Dr Spencer, Do you?

Spot, You are the expert on the Straw Man argument. You seem to have gleaned from the paper that Dr. Spencer is saying the the planet is not warming and the ice is not melting. Where did you read that? He is just saying that CO2 is not the major cause, suggesting that there is a negative feedback from that source. However, the models referenced by the IPCC assume a positive feedback, allowing the increases in CO2 to ratchet the future global climate to dangerous levels.