| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology - Meteorology Forum » Negative Feedbacks Will Produce Global Cooling
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| 0BN0Z |
 Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned
cold."
Owen McShane
7 Apr 2008
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR
QUOTE 1: "Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide
levels increase there is a law of "diminishing returns" - or more
properly "diminishing effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2
concentration do not generate proportional increases in temperature. The
common analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint
cut out lots of light but subsequent layers have diminishing impact."
QUOTE 2: "However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the
water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and
thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism."
Quote 3: "A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to
the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of
industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be
profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening
experience.
Unlike so many of the hapless victims on TVOne's daily Crimewatch (also
known as One Network News) I have recently been lucky enough to be in
two right places at the right time.
In December last year, at the UN conference in Bali, I heard Viscount
Monckton present a paper prepared by himself, the Australian Dr David
Evans and our own Dr Vincent Gray (who were at Bali, too) that showed
while the IPCC models predict that greenhouse gases would produce an
extensive "hot spot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics, the
satellite measurements show no such hotspots have appeared.
Monckton and Evans found a large part of this discrepancy is the result
of some basic errors in the IPCC's assessment of the Stefan-Boltzmann
equation. When they applied their revised factor to the effect of
greenhouse gases, the temperature rise was about a third of that
predicted by the IPCC.
So by late last year we not only knew IPCC forecasts of atmospheric
global warming were wrong; we were beginning to understand why they are
wrong.
The key issue in this debate is whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases
or natural solar activities are the prime drivers of climate change. A
closely related argument is whether the climate is highly sensitive to
carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Doubtful predictions
Put together, these uncertainties raise doubts as to whether the IPCC
models can accurately forecast the climate over the long term. If they
cannot, then we have to wonder how much damage we should risk doing to
the world's economies in attempts to manage the possibly adverse effects
of these "predictions."
The findings that the predicted "tropical hot spots" do not exist are
important because the IPCC models assume these hot spots will be formed
by increased evaporation from warmer oceans leading to the accumulations
of higher concentrations of water vapour in the upper atmosphere, and
thereby generating a positive feedback reinforcing the small amount of
warming that can be caused by CO2 alone.
Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide levels
increase there is a law of "diminishing returns" - or more properly
"diminishing effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2 concentration
do not generate proportional increases in temperature. The common
analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint cut out
lots of light but subsequent layers have diminishing impact.
So, you might be asking, why the panic? Why does Al Gore talk about
temperatures spiraling out of control, causing mass extinctions and
catastrophic rises in sea-level, and all his other disastrous outcomes
when there is no evidence to support it?
The alarmists argue that increased CO2 leads to more water vapour - the
main greenhouse gas - and this provides positive feedback and hence
makes the overall climate highly sensitive to small increases in the
concentration of CO2.
Consequently, the IPCC argues that while carbon dioxide may well "run
out of puff" the consequent evaporation of water vapour provides the
positive feedback loop that will make anthropogenic global warming reach
dangerous levels.
This assumption that water vapour provides positive feedback lies behind
the famous "tipping point," which nourishes Al Gore's dreams of
destruction, and indeed all those calls for action now - "before it is
too late!"
But no climate models predict such a tipping point.
However, while the absence of hot spots has refuted one important aspect
of the IPCC models we lack a mechanism that fully explains these
supposed outcomes. Hence the IPCC, and its supporters, have been able to
ignore this "refutation."
So by the end of last year, we were in a similar situation to the 19th
century astronomers, who had figured out that the sun could not be
"burning" its fuel - or it would have turned to ashes long ago - but
could not explain where the energy was coming from. Then along came
Einstein and E=mc2.
Hard to explain
Similarly, the climate sceptics have had to explain why the hotspots are
not where they should be - not just challenge the theory with their
observations.
This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time
when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate
change in March. At first I thought this was just another paper setting
out observations against the forecasts, further confirming Evans'
earlier work.
But as the argument unfolded I realised Spencer was drawing on
observations and measurements from the new Aqua satellites to explain
the mechanism behind this anomaly between model forecasts and
observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot predict
clouds and rain with any accuracy. Their models assume water vapour goes
up to the troposphere and hangs around to cook us all in a greenhouse
future.
However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the water vapour
and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the
added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.
The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain
(Spencer's mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by
Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect).
The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes
that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and
Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low
altitudes that lead to cooling.
Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds
cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to
negate the CO2 warming.
Alarmists' quandary
This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead
author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing
that he is right!
There goes the alarmist neighbourhood!
The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour
is a damper against the warming effect of CO2.
That is why history is full of Ice Ages - where other effects, such as
increased reflection from the ice cover, do provide positive feedback -
while we do not hear about Heat Ages. The Medieval Warm Period, for
example, is known for being benignly warm - not dangerously hot.
We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned
cold.
While I have done my best to simplify these developments they remain
highly technical and many people distrust their own ability to assess
competing scientific claims. However, in this case the tipping point
theories are based on models that do not include the effects of rain and
clouds.
The new Nasa Aqua satellite is the first to measure the effects of
clouds and rainfall. Spencer's interpretation of the new data means all
previous models and forecasts are obsolete. Would anyone trust long-term
forecasts of farm production that were hopeless at forecasting rainfall?
The implications of these breakthroughs in measurement and understanding
are dramatic to say the least. The responses will be fun to watch.
Alarmists, 'experts' face a new inconvenient truth
Christopher Pearson, of The Australian newspaper (March 22), has written
up a remarkable ABC television interview with Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a
senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne-based
think tank.
Dr Marohasy says the impact of the Aqua satellite and Spencer's
interpretation of the data and prompts the reporter to conclude with
some pungent observations of his own:
"If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the
global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more
interesting.
"A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN,
most heads of government along with countless captains of industry,
learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly
embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
"With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial
gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the
next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that
is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The
delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help
save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense
it was all along.
RAIN CHECK: Spencer's analyses based on new satellite data pour cold
rain on warming theory
"The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way
toward prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their
carbon-footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with
Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
"The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of
regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have
to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find
something more plausible to do.
The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate 'climate
refugees."
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"How does a small increase in a very small component [of CO2] have such
a large apparent effect [On Climate]? The truth is that no one has yet
shown that it does." Don Aitkin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0BN0Z" <0BN0Z@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
Quote: "We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned
cold."
2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer
January 16, 2008
The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this century,
NASA
scientists announced today.
Climatologists at the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS)
in
New York used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite
measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for
earlier
years to construct a record of global average temperatures going back for
over a
century.
The GISS analysis has 1934, 1998 and 2005 tied as the warmest years in the
United States (with 2005 being the warmest globally).
The eight warmest years globally in the past century have all occurred since
1998, and the 14 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.
The greatest observed warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, which
experienced
a record sea ice melt this summer, opening up the fabled Northwest Passage
for
the first time.
"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong
warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to
the
effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said NASA GISS Director
James
E. Hansen.
A minor flaw in the GISS record discovered last year did not affect this
analysis, the scientists noted.
Hansen says that warming can be expected to continue, with another record
warm
year coming soon, though it is unlikely to be 2008.
"Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly
exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the
time of
the next El Nino , because of the background warming trend attributable to
continuing increases of greenhouse gases," Hansen said.
El Nino tends to have a warming effect on temperatures in many areas, while
the
volcanic ash that an eruption spews into the air has a cooling effect.
While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
proceed
constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat May 17, 2008 6:10 am
|
|
