Remember me
▼ Content

So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?



Page 1 of 5123>>>
So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?16-03-2017 05:56
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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?
16-03-2017 10:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
16-03-2017 15:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.


Excellent!!! Man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 (& other man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs) are the valves that controll phase change, infra-red energy absorbing water vapor.
Edited on 16-03-2017 15:00
16-03-2017 16:34
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
The most important positive feedback effect comes from water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas


It also make up 95% of all greenhouse gasses. CO2 makes up 3.2 percent all greenhouse gasses, and natural CO2 makes up, well it's arguable, but I have a Dept Of Energy graph(which is now nowhere to be found online,I suspect they were told to obliterate it) saying it's as high as 96%, which would put mans contribution to total greenhouse gas at 1 tenth of one percent. Surface Decal will say man's contribution in 30% of total CO2, still less than 1 percent of total GHGs.

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.

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

WTF

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

1 degree in 100 years. We're all going to die.

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

But not in lock step and at times CO2 rise has been seen to rise for 4000 years while temps steadily fell.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:


Edited on 16-03-2017 16:36
16-03-2017 16:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
16-03-2017 17:02
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.

"gaslighter" says CO2 can't raise Earth temperatures. "gaslighter", after being shown that water vapor is controlled by man-made GHGs, now says that water vapor ain't gonna work either.
16-03-2017 17:42
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
A little more background on feedback:
This example represents the "no feedback" case...only the temperature has changed in the system, resulting in extra infrared energy being given off, at a rate of 3.3 Watts per square meter for every degree C of temperature increase. But in the real world, any source of warming (or cooling) causes other changes in clouds, water vapor, etc., to occur. These can cause extra warming if they either increase the amount of absorbed sunlight (e.g. fewer low clouds), or reduce the rate of infrared radiation to outer space (e.g. more water vapor, our main greenhouse gas). These warmth-amplifying changes are called positive feedbacks.

Alternatively, cloud and water vapor changes could decrease the amount of absorbed sunlight or increase the amount of emitted infrared energy, thus reducing the warming. This is called negative feedback.

That number (3.3) thus represents the magic boundary between positive and negative feedback. If satellites measure more than 3.3 Watts per square meter given off by the Earth per degree of global warming, that is evidence of negative feedback. If the number is less than 3.3, that is positive feedback. If the number reached zero, that would correspond to a borderline unstable climate system. The 20 climate models tracked by the IPCC have feedbacks ranging from about 0.9 to 1.9 (all corresponding to positive feedback since they are less than 3.3). by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
December 27, 2008 (last modified December 29, 2008)
16-03-2017 17:42
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
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?

You did see the graph from the DOE right?

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.

That's why I quoted you and your claim of 30%. Did you just get too pissed off to read?

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.

Maybe, but it also seems quite illogical to think we can change the climate when we are responsible for less 1% (your figure of 30%) of all greenhouse gasses.

If the temp has risen 1 degree in 100 years, you could also say man has raised the temp 1 100th of a degree in 100 years, or 1 1000th of a degree in the last decade.....but 5 million people are dead every year due to the global furnace.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 16-03-2017 17:43
16-03-2017 18:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
You did see the graph from the DOE right?

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.
Edited on 16-03-2017 18:24
16-03-2017 18:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:

16-03-2017 19:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
16-03-2017 19:51
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
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?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 16-03-2017 20:02
16-03-2017 20:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 20:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
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.


Stay tuned.....



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
16-03-2017 20:13
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
...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]
Edited on 16-03-2017 20:15
16-03-2017 20:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

You should always be sceptical about what you read. This means checking how information has been obtained and verifying that it is consistent with other information.

You "DOE" graph fails on both of these counts. There is no way to determine how the figures in the graph were derived, and the 3.2% figure is inconsistent with other, reliably sourced, data indicating that humans are responsible for raising the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 405 ppm.

You can't simply choose to believe whatever matches your person philosophy, regardless of its provenance, and call that reality.
16-03-2017 20:22
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
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]


Dammit you figured it out. Everyone is lying to you about water vapour to get tax, you are a super-genius. Trump needs people like you in his cabinet.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 20:25
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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.
16-03-2017 20:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
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.


Dr Roy Spencer also advocates Intelligent design be taught instead of evolution, This is silly. If he thinks obviously silly things on one issue, why take him seriously when he advocates a position at odds with practically everyone qualified on the subject on another issue?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 20:43
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Throughout history famous scientists have had unusual (silly?) religious beliefs. That field isn't settled either. Judge the paper on its own merits.
16-03-2017 20:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
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/
16-03-2017 21:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
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?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 21:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
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......



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
16-03-2017 21:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
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/


The moons average temperature is lower then the earth, however in direct sunlight it's hotter then here.

Explain that super-genius


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 21:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
Air.
16-03-2017 21:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
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......


You might not have a problem, Dr Spencer does though.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 21:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Air.


Thanks for filling me in with that revelation.

So if a planet is covered with air and that affects the temperature. Changing the properties of the air are would also affect the temperature?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 21:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
Da?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
16-03-2017 21:22
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Da?


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


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-03-2017 21:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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?


The bit about you understanding that scientists agree that this would be threatening is wrong. It's just hype from the green/communist idiots.

What do you think the threat is of?
16-03-2017 21:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Da?


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


Honestly, no. First it was trapped heat but now the conversation seams to be shifting towards "enhanced" heat.....exactly like the shifting from "global warming" to "climate change".


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
16-03-2017 23:28
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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.
17-03-2017 00:09
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Callendar's theories and Spencer's do not conflict. Both agree that CO2 contributes to warming, with or without the use of a computer.
17-03-2017 00:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.

1. You didn't link to a paper. You linked to a blog post on Spencer's blog. It's a summary of a paper that Spencer had not yet submitted for publication.

2. The actual paper published later, was different to the summary he posted.
Here is the published paper:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008JCLI2253.1

3. You can't have looked very hard to find rebuttals. (Hint, try searching for the paper in Google Scholar and look at other papers that have cited it) Here are several rebuttals:


Gregory, J.M., and Forster, P.M. (2008) Transient climate response estimated from radiative forcing and observed temperature change, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D23105.

Dessler, A.E. (2010) A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, 1523-1527

Murphy, D.M., and Forster, P.M. (2010) On the accuracy of deriving climate feedback parameters from correlations between surface temperature and outgoing radiation, Journal of Climate, 23, 4983-4988.

This is a direct quote from Murphy & Forster 2010:

"Changes in outgoing radiation are both a consequence and a cause of changes in the earth's temperature. Spencer and Braswell recently showed that in a simple box model for the earth the regression of outgoing radiation against surface temperature gave a slope that differed from the model's true feedback parameter. They went on to select input parameters for the box model based on observations, computed the difference for those conditions, and asserted that there is a significant bias for climate studies.

This paper shows that Spencer and Braswell overestimated the difference. Differences between the regression slope and the true feedback parameter are significantly reduced when 1) a more realistic value for the ocean mixed layer depth is used, 2) a corrected standard deviation of outgoing radiation is used, and 3) the model temperature variability is computed over the same time interval as the observations. When all three changes are made, the difference between the slope and feedback parameter is less than one-tenth of that estimated by Spencer and Braswell. Absolute values of the difference for realistic cases are less than 0.05 W/m^2/K, which is not significant for climate studies that employ regressions of outgoing radiation against temperature. Previously published results show that the difference is negligible in the Hadley Centre Slab Climate Model, version 3 (HadSM3). (Murphy and Forster, 2010)"


Basically the big problem with Spencer & Braswell 2008 was that they used a very simple climate model, plugged in unrealistic values, and used a very short time period. That's the only way they got the answer they 'wanted'. Which was easily shown to be wrong.
Edited on 17-03-2017 01:06
17-03-2017 00:59
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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 does not imply causation comes to mind. What if other factors caused the interglacial warming and that warming caused the CO2 concentration to increase? I recall that there was a lag between the temperature rise and the CO2 rise.

In the ice albedo case, the amount of additional radiation absorbed would seem to be rather small on a global basis.

Thanks again for your reply and the knowledge it brought.
17-03-2017 01:04
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Ceist, thanks for the update. I'll study it.
17-03-2017 02:03
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.

Frescomexico,

In ice-core studies, one study (Caillon et al 2003) suggested that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 (+/- 200) years in the Vostok ice-core in Antarctica 240,000 years ago (Termination III) but preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation by several thousand years. After the initial orbital forcing, for about 90% (~4200 years) of the warming period (~5000 years) in Antarctica, CO2 preceded the rise in temperature. This shows that in Antarctica, CO2 wasn't the initial forcing that drove the deglaciation, but greatly amplified the initial forcing.

The Caillon et al 2003 paper also clearly states that the situation during Termination III is very different to the current situation where anthropogenic increases in CO2 is the main forcing for temperature rise.

Read the paper for more details:

Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J. P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J. M., Kang, J., & Lipenkov, V. Y. (2003). Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299(5613), 1728-1731.

You can find a free copy here:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/CaillonScience2003.pdf

Conservative/libertarian political groups who are opposed to any sort of regulation of CO2 emissions, and conservative religious groups who can't accept the fact that human activities can cause the climate to change, jumped on this paper, misrepresented it, and proclaimed that CO2 can't cause warming because it lags temperature by 800 years!!!! And so a science denier myth was born.

There are a lot of studies you could read if you wanted to learn more.

You might also be interested in the Shakun et al 2012 study which uses 80 global proxies and shows that for much of the global warming of the last deglaciation, CO2 rises preceded the temperature rises:

Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., ... & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49-54.

You can find a free copy here:
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

To look up even more recent research, try searching in Google Scholar on the title of a paper then look at the papers which cite that paper. For example there are 424 papers which cite the Shakun et al 2012 paper.

Google Scholar is your friend if you want to find published research in science Journals. Just plain Google will show you lot's of rubbish websites and blogs.
https://scholar.google.com.au/

Many of the papers are in paywalled Journals, however if you ask nicely, I might provide a copy for you.

Edited on 17-03-2017 02:20
17-03-2017 02:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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?


That chart would not have been from the DOE website. Can you provide a link to the actual website where you got it?
Edited on 17-03-2017 02:18
17-03-2017 02:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
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?


I happened on it one day while researching some stuff. I threw in a picture folder but forgot to link it. I did want to be able to link it later, but when I went back looking it is simply gone!

I won't claim it as from the DOE, but it's just weird it disappeared...as it is when people mysteriously disappear when they are too involved with the wrong side of governments.

....and it's fun to tweak Surface Decal with it. He gets soooo pissed off!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 17-03-2017 02:41
17-03-2017 02:47
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.

Roy Spencer, appears to finds it difficult to accept that human activities can change the climate- because of his conservative Dominionist religious beliefs. You'll find that much of his 'work' has significant flaws and has been rebutted/corrected. (Spencer also doesn't accept evolution)

There are a handful of climate 'scientists' who believe God created the earth for men to dominate and made it 'perfectly' so that humans couldn't stuff it up.
They believe in Biblically based 'science'.

I kid you not.

Roy Spencer and others (like Pat Michaels) are signatories of the Cornwall Alliance "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming"

http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

which states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history"

"We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking..."

The Biblical Perspective of Environmental Stewardship: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God and the Benefit of Our Neighbors:

http://cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/the-biblical-perspective-of-environmental-stewardship-subduing-and-ruling-the-earth-to-the-glory-of-god-and-the-benefit-of-our-neighbors/
"Earth and all its subsystems—of land, sea, and air, living and nonliving—are the good products of the wise design and omnipotent acts of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Triune God of the Bible. As such they reveal God's glory. Mankind, created in God's image, is the crown of creation.

Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth, transforming it from wilderness into garden. They act as stewards under God to cultivate and guard what they subdue and rule. Calling them to be His vicegerents over the Earth, God requires obedience to His laws—in Scripture and imprinted in the human conscience—in their stewardship.

Although sin, universal among mankind, deeply mars this stewardship, God's redemptive act in Jesus Christ's death on the cross and His instructive activity through Scripture, communicating the nature of creation and human responsibility for it, enable people to create wealth and decrease poverty at the same time that they pursue creation stewardship and, even more important, the true spiritual wealth of knowing their Creator through Jesus Christ.

The Biblical worldview contrasts sharply with the environmentalist worldview—whether secular or religious—in many significant ways..."

http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/
Edited on 17-03-2017 02:48
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Blockchain to help Liverpool become world's first climate-positive city001-08-2018 18:50
Arctic sea ice loss, negative or positive feedback?4609-08-2017 01:21
The most debated feedback / forcings?129-04-2017 03:37
Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.2512-03-2017 01:25
Positive effects of global warming3505-12-2014 13:26
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact