The Nonsense That is Global Warming

[johnholmes]

If that's the case then explain why a descending column of moisture laden air eventually condenses i.e. forms cloud. Indeed, it is the slow process of condensation that releases latent heat and allows a column of air to remain buoyant.

I've had one skim of the link you attach, but will require a much slower read to get my head around his arguments. I'm not sure what he's saying really, though it seems to be that rH is a poor measure of the amount of water suspended in the air.

In essence, it's basically a piece of simple physics: the warmer the air the more energy the molecules in the air will have - including in this water molecules. As gas requires a higher state of energisation than liquid, and liquid more than solid, so it becomes possible for ever hotter air to hold more water in gaseous form - i.e. free floating molecules of H2O. At the other end of the scale this is why very cold air is often very dry, and underlies the old adage "too cold for snow". Whilst technically this is incorrect, in essence it does reflect the very low absolute humidity of air that is cooled way below freezing.

I've done much the same so far, skimmed through it and I agree with your views SF. One other point I don't think the article is saying anything different really. It seems the latest thing is to try and debunk earlier ideas. I don't think he succeeds and the basic law of physics cannot be easily changed. It still 'says' warm air can hold more moisture than cold air.

Can anyone explain how the equator is a wetter place than the polar regions if my stance is incorrect?

[pottyprof]

Can I just say that Jethro has never said anywhere in this forum, that she does not believe in GW. She does however question AGW, as many do..

Let's not go on a mission peeps.. The last couple of weeks have been great..

[jethro]

Can I just say that Jethro has never said anywhere in this forum, that she does not believe in GW. She does however question AGW, as many do..

Let's not go on a mission peeps.. The last couple of weeks have been great..

Thank you Potty.

I bowed out of all debate for a couple of weeks with the intention of perhaps not bothering anymore; in fairness to the promised now more actively moderated nature of the enviro threads I thought I'd give it another go, see what happened. I am saddened by the response to my posts; why is it so inflamatory to question the degree of our influence upon climate? Surely the only way to ascertain the "A" part of AGW is to measure the natural influences/patterns/drivers and deduct that from the total of any change? If these threads are to be a genuine area of debate for environmental issues then surely all views should be welcomed and heard, if not then the whole exercise would surely be reduced to a back slapping round of agreement. Peaceful for all concerned perhaps, but hardly debate.

[Paul]

Seriously folks, reading todays posts I can barely see anything which could be construed as being out of line, unless I'm missing something? But as no-one has reported any posts I'm going to assume I'm reading it all in the same way the vast majority of other users do. So, why is the debate now turning to the standard of debate rather than the topic in hand? (this is a rhetorical question btw, if anyone feels the need to point out an issue I and the team have missed, please don't use this thread, use the pm or report system)

[Stratos Ferric]

...In my mind, we are warming, we have been for some time. Climate is not a static state, never has been, never will be, with or without our influence. In order to measure our influence accurately we first need to achieve a more accurate measurement of the natural drivers and variations; in what way does this mean I do not believe in GW? In what way does this infer I declare it to be ALL natural? ...

Jethro,

sincere apologies if I appear to be misconstruing your words (in red above), but when a few hours previously you have written:

The climate is warming; I agree but is this above and beyond the bounds of natural variation?

then I think one can be forgiven for reading into your assessment a position which is that all of the current warming might just be natural (i.e. for the purposes of the other person who took umbrage with my challenge - 'a blip') - indeed, the opening sentence in the first quote above infers the same point...climate has always varied this might just be natural variation.

When I talk about warming I am using the phrase to mean upward trend. I suspect that on occasion you use it to mean 'short-term natural variation' which will, sooner or later, swing back down. There is a potential semantic trap here, but I would not, personally, use GW to refer to a cyclical change. I think it's generally fair to say that GW is taken to mean ongoing (and likely to continue) warming of the climate. This is JUST MY interpretation, but linking GW and natural cycles in the same sentence is rather like linking the National Front and enlightened thinking on multi-racial society.

To your point re measuring natural factors that might be influencing the climate and causing it to warm, this topic does circle more than air traffic above The Weald, and seems similarly disinclined to land. There have been lots of theories posted on these pages: under water vulcanicity, increased solar radiation, planetary alignment, ozone...the list is endless. The problem is that none of these suggestions ever stack up in practice. And I'm sorry, but the point is often made, it would be astonishing indeed if someone here on little ond N-W had spotted a flaw in the background drivers that one of those scientists out there had not already spotted, measured, and dismissed.

It could all be natural, it surely could, but it would be one of the freakiest coincidences of all time that natural warming is occurring coincident with man-made forcing that might be expected to have the saem results. And whilst we're talking about background natural cycles, why does nobody ever stop to ponder on whether the background natural movement at present is not actually downwards? Maybe we aren't warming fast enough?

[jethro]

Jethro,

sincere apologies if I appear to be misconstruing your words (in red above), but when a few hours previously you have written:

then I think one can be forgiven for reading into your assessment a position which is that all of the current warming might just be natural (i.e. for the purposes of the other person who took umbrage with my challenge - 'a blip') - indeed, the opening sentence in the first quote above infers the same point...climate has always varied this might just be natural variation.

When I talk about warming I am using the phrase to mean upward trend. I suspect that on occasion you use it to mean 'short-term natural variation' which will, sooner or later, swing back down. There is a potential semantic trap here, but I would not, personally, use GW to refer to a cyclical change. I think it's generally fair to say that GW is taken to mean ongoing (and likely to continue) warming of the climate. This is JUST MY interpretation, but linking GW and natural cycles in the same sentence is rather like linking the National Front and enlightened thinking on multi-racial society.

To your point re measuring natural factors that might be influencing the climate and causing it to warm, this topic does circle more than air traffic above The Weald, and seems similarly disinclined to land. There have been lots of theories posted on these pages: under water vulcanicity, increased solar radiation, planetary alignment, ozone...the list is endless. The problem is that none of these suggestions ever stack up in practice. And I'm sorry, but the point is often made, it would be astonishing indeed if someone here on little ond N-W had spotted a flaw in the background drivers that one of those scientists out there had not already spotted, measured, and dismissed.

It could all be natural, it surely could, but it would be one of the freakiest coincidences of all time that natural warming is occurring coincident with man-made forcing that might be expected to have the saem results. And whilst we're talking about background natural cycles, why does nobody ever stop to ponder on whether the background natural movement at present is not actually downwards? Maybe we aren't warming fast enough?

Fair comment Stratos, apology accepted.

We do have quite a history of, at times heated debate, on many many occasions I have spelt out my stance about all this to you but you do seem to forget this. Can we please, once and for all clear up this confusion? It does tend to hamper progress somewhat.

All of the above natural causes you have mentioned and many more may/do play a part in all this, I'm not saying "oh it's all the sun" or "hey we've discovered underwater volcanos, puzzle solved"; all I'm ever saying or rather mostly asking, is could the sum of many little things be adding to the problem? Co2 isn't the be-all and end-all of the AGW puzzle but it is so often used as the explanation, a get out clause for all climate changes. I don't for one minute believe we have had no impact but conversely, I don't believe we are responsible for the total change in temps. Nor do I discount that we could be naturally cooling and therefore actually be warming greater or quicker than first thought or indeed naturally warming; I have often asked if one of the main reasons why the IPCC projections are happening quicker than they should is because of underlying natural variations amplifying Co2.

I use the term warming as a coverall, regardless of origin; we are warming, have been for some time, I don't see how anyone could argue with that, I certainly don't. Natural trends/drivers are there, I don't see them as blips or indeed see the current climate as a blip in the sense that what goes up must come down, ergo what's the problem. I just wonder how much the natural climate drivers are being disregarded in favour of the current desire to pin every climate happening on Co2.

If there is a name badge to be pinned to me then it isn't "denier" or "sceptic" for that matter, it's "curious" or "puzzled"; I love learning new things, discovering how stuff works, I have no agenda either way warming or cooling, I just want a clearer picture.

Truce??

edit: typo's

Edited October 30, 2007 by jethro

[VillagePlank]

If that's the case then explain why a descending column of moisture laden air eventually condenses i.e. forms cloud. Indeed, it is the slow process of condensation that releases latent heat and allows a column of air to remain buoyant.

Ah maybe I'm wrong, then - or rather reading the wrong sources. I thought that at the same temperature a column of dry air is denser and will descend in a pool of moist air and at the same temperature a column of moist air will rise (or be bouyant) within a pool of dry air without latent heat release.

[Gray-Wolf]

J.H's point about wetter equator, dry poles is another side to AGW that we haven't had the chance of fully 'appreciating' yet. Sure, we're measuring more cloud and higher rainfall totals in the equatorial regions but we're not really feeling the impact that active 'wet' weather (and it's formation) will bring to more Polar/temperate climes.

If you can imagine a Polar ocean acting like the north Atlantic then you see the potential for polar rain events and polar storm swells /surges across the low lying,swampy Russian coastal strip (and it's erosional power!).

We may not be in for any more '63's (such a fine year fo anyone to be born in!!!) but I wouldn't rule out short term heavy snow events especially if evaporation can occur freely to our north!

[Stratos Ferric]

Ah maybe I'm wrong, then - or rather reading the wrong sources. I thought that at the same temperature a column of dry air is denser and will descend in a pool of moist air and at the same temperature a column of moist air will rise (or be bouyant) within a pool of dry air without latent heat release.

Wooo, going to have to read that a couple more times...

I think the buoyancy comes from surface warming, hence why glider pilots look for thermals, and cumulus clouds - like volcanos - rise in one location before being blown away and (except in very unstable conditions) then tend to decline. Orographic effects fall into a different camp by the way.

Whether air continues to rise then depends on the lapse rate and how moist the parcel of air is; moist air cools less quickly - largely because the liquid phase of the gas gives up heat less readily I think - so has greater buoyancy, and then releases latent heat as and when evaporation starts. The author of your paper is right about the boundary state being one of constant dynamism; without this the continuing build of a cloud would be very difficult as condensation would be sudden, total and instantaneous: we would have not so much cloud as a veneer of water.

The downdraughts are a necessity and often just an eddy; a bit like a bike pedal - we put pressure on only one side, the other happens to rotate back to a starting position. Hence in thunder clouds (e.g. Cb) there is a rapidly rising core, with associated downdraughts outside the cloud - leading to the vertical wind-sheer that can be very dangerous for landing planes, and hence why planes often divert final approach during thunder (nothing really to do with lightning strikes).

At the macro scale the same dynamics operate. The Hadley and Ferrel cells rely on a thermal engine to drive the uplift of warm air towards the tropopause. Once the air has risen as far as it can (to the point beyond which the atmopshere starts to warm again, so making air below LESS buoyant) it has nowehere to go but sideways - being displaced by more air from below, and hence the impetus for the jet to form (you can see now why surface anomalies can either create more or less energy to provide more or less uplift from the surface and hence a stronger or weaker jet - warming per se doesn't impact this, but it DOES impact the total amount of mositure evaporated, and which can then be carried aloft, which is why the received wisdom is for GW to increase precipitation - particularly intensity - and perhaps also fuel more tropical storms). I'm simplifying a bit here, but the jet cannot accelerate indefinitely, in the same way that a hosepipe can only support so much water before internal friction restricts the flow, and coupled with the consequences of rotational geometry (angular movement of the sinuous jet vs spin of the earth) the jet accelerates and decelerates. Where it decelerates air literally piles up and since it cannot go upwards (the tropopause stops it) it is force down. Descending air CANNOT be definition be cooling, and hence why we get surface HP areas, with a characteristric lack of surface moisture. Once at the surface the air moves from H to L pressure, and so the whole cyclical process recommences.

J.H's point about wetter equator, dry poles is another side to AGW that we haven't had the chance of fully 'appreciating' yet. Sure, we're measuring more cloud and higher rainfall totals in the equatorial regions but we're not really feeling the impact that active 'wet' weather (and it's formation) will bring to more Polar/temperate climes.

If you can imagine a Polar ocean acting like the north Atlantic then you see the potential for polar rain events and polar storm swells /surges across the low lying,swampy Russian coastal strip (and it's erosional power!).

We may not be in for any more '63's (such a fine year fo anyone to be born in!!!) but I wouldn't rule out short term heavy snow events especially if evaporation can occur freely to our north!

I think the jury's out to be honest GW. If the pressure belts drift north then here in the UK we should become rather more mediterranean in type. Dry summers, potentially wetter winters - it may be that we get more rain, particularly in winter, but less frequently.

[laserguy]

http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshireti...CALYPSE_NO.html

This makes an interesting read,albeit a lengthy one.

Chicken and egg time. Which came first- the idea that out of all the known 'greenhouse gasses', CO2 was deemed destined to trigger global warming before a warming was actually noted,or was a warming noted which triggered the search for a culprit which strangely dismissed everything else and zeroed in on CO2 just as it was noted that an energy crisis might be on the (then ) distant horizon?

[jethro]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry or perhaps cry with laughing... Check out the last sentence of the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry or perhaps cry with laughing... Check out the last sentence of the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

The Guardian today went to greater lengths to explain how many other 'hooded' seals had been noted heading south and that the changing ocean dynamics, leading to the displacement of fish stocks/species, may play some part in these 'novel' behaviours.

As I'd mooted on another thread I feel many of the writers for the mail are having a good old giggle (knowing the sort of folk who patronise their publication) at their readership's expense and that their readership is so naive as to neither suspect or care that this may be the case.

[jethro]

The Guardian today went to greater lengths to explain how many other 'hooded' seals had been noted heading south and that the changing ocean dynamics, leading to the displacement of fish stocks/species, may play some part in these 'novel' behaviours.

As I'd mooted on another thread I feel many of the writers for the mail are having a good old giggle (knowing the sort of folk who patronise their publication) at their readership's expense and that their readership is so naive as to neither suspect or care that this may be the case.

It was the talk over in the other thread which prompted a look at The Mail, I think you may be right in your assertions GW, used to be expected of the "red tops" but it's spread far and wide now, funny old world eh.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

It was the talk over in the other thread which prompted a look at The Mail, I think you may be right in your assertions GW, used to be expected of the "red tops" but it's spread far and wide now, funny old world eh.

It'll be the "Gospel Truth" by the time the Sundays have repeated it

[laserguy]

Last night (Thursday ), I'd just sat down for something to eat having been 'on the go' for 19 hours since rising at 4am.,as is my wont. I put the tv. on,knowing that Newsnight would be in progress. At the moment the tv. came on,they were partway through an article about various scares in recent history,and how none of them had came to pass. The report on which the article was based apparently said that global warming was the latest,and not only had it been consistently 'over-hyped',a growing body of climatologists are now coming to the conclusion that it doesn't exist outside of the realms of what is natural and expected. Did anyone else see the article in it's entirity,and if so what do you think? Please don't reply by saying "well you would agree with it wouldn't you Laserguy"! Bear in mind that I was bouncing off the walls with tiredness and caught it part-way through so I can't really comment fully. What I did notice however (and the incidence of this is definitely increasing), was reference to global energy sources. I've said all along that global warming/climate change is a synonym for energy resource depletion,and as time goes by the evidence for that increases. Without a looming energy crisis,climate change would never have been thought of.

Had a bit of a nice lie-in this morning and didn't get up 'til 5am. Put the tv. news on and the first thing I saw was yet another article on global warming,saying it's gonna be even worse and it's onset much more abrupt than previously anticipated! Does anybody really,honestly know what they are talking about? My mind was made up long ago,but what are people who have no interest in climate and weather supposed to make of all this? This morning's article,btw,was even more generously sprinkled with references to energy shortages/industrial strife and economic collapse in coming years. Make of that what you will. If man-made CO2 drives climate change (utter garbage,purely my opinion,mind ),then as has been pointed out by many on numerous occasions,our imagined problems will be no more in the not too distant future. We'll have infinitely bigger things to worry about than snow free winters and missing getting the lawn sprinkler out on an August afternoon.

Why no replies to my 'chicken and egg' question a few posts back?! That's telling,though I expect a rash of feverishly cobbled together responses now from the AGWers just before the raft they're clinging to goes under once and for all! If governments of the world want us all to consume less and conserve energy supplies,why don't they just say so instead of dreaming up scary fairy tales of climate change when there's a much bigger,badder and very real monster waiting for us? Do they think we can't handle the shocking reality? Maybe they're right.

Oh well,seeing as they won't tell us direct that there's a fuel problem,and I don't buy AGW,there's no harm in me getting my monstrous 1200cc,gas guzzling motorbike out just for the hell of it,is there? Hey,it's my only indulgence! I'm making the most of it while I still can,catch y'all later.

[Gray-Wolf]

You bumped into an interview (I imagine) by a couple of twerps out to make money from a book on disaster overburden. They cite CJD,Millenium bug and all the others that they can adhere to there theory whilst sidestepping HIV and the like's as 'prof positive that we are living from scare story to scare story. Tosh and more Tosh! Some papers/media outlets will always sensationalise stories but it doesn't take any right thinking person long to sort the 'wheat from the chaff' (as most counterpoint interviewees were keen to point out).

If you believe everything you read without checking any surce or scientific background then you deserve your agnst or self proclaimed ignorance I'd say!

So far as G.W. is cncerned you probably saw the Ozzie report (which has been mentioned on here for 6 weeks prior to publishing!) on the fact that our utputs are already 10yrs ahead of IPCC predictions and set to rise further. Todays news that the Storm damage from Katrina has negated all of the other U.S. forrestry CO2 sinks as the felled trees rot emphasises the recent discovery of our poorly performing Global CO2 sinks allowing much more CO2 into the atmosphere than forcast before any 'extra outputs' are factored into the equation.

Most folk seem to recognise where we are headed with GW without the slightest confusion. The only confusion I come across whislt trawling is over the scale and speed of the changes we will encounter.

[laserguy]

Can't really disagree with you about the stuff on Newsnight,GW. That's largely my point though,all the misinformation that's going off and the conflicting messages and ensuing confusion. Calrission touched on this recently,as you know,and if someone can't be ***ed to 'do the research',well,no-one can force them to. To them,it's like having two people talking to them at the same time and trying to hear the loudest voice. I'm not angst-ridden or ignorant btw,oh far,far from it! Mind you,Newsnight is seen as a 'serious' programme not given to nonsense,so who were they aiming at? Not readers of the tabloids,surely not?

[Stratos Ferric]

It was the talk over in the other thread which prompted a look at The Mail, I think you may be right in your assertions GW, used to be expected of the "red tops" but it's spread far and wide now, funny old world eh.

On the face of it it is a silly article, but I would have welcomed an explanation from the scientists as to why they would blame GW. Then at least we'd know whether there was any rationale: it appears to have little face validity, but what I know about the migratory habits of a seal would balance on a pin head. The general impact of GW, however, is to force animals polewards, not equatorwards. Maybe high SSTs fried the poor animal's brain?

[Gray-Wolf]

On the face of it it is a silly article, but I would have welcomed an explanation from the scientists as to why they would blame GW. Then at least we'd know whether there was any rationale: it appears to have little face validity, but what I know about the migratory habits of a seal would balance on a pin head. The general impact of GW, however, is to force animals polewards, not equatorwards. Maybe high SSTs fried the poor animal's brain?

I think we've been having some probs with breeding gulls and such due to the lack of sand eels/mackrel to the NW of our fair isles. If changing conditions are altering where fish shoal and breed then the seal will have to try and find them. I think they migrate along the continental shelf (which is why this poor sod has twice ended up at the southern end of the european continental shelf) but then whadaIknow?

[Bobby]

That things are happening faster than many think is surely true - the polar ice cap is melting far faster than even the most pessimistic IPCC predictions and CO2 emissions are rising about 35% faster than the IPCC predicted.

[Stratos Ferric]

That things are happening faster than many think is surely true - the polar ice cap is melting far faster than even the most pessimistic IPCC predictions and CO2 emissions are rising about 35% faster than the IPCC predicted.

Not according to the discussion in the other thread, it's not.

[jethro]

Not according to the discussion in the other thread, it's not.

Indeed, and it's not us sceptics/doubters/questioners/those reading and researching for themselves in order to make an informed opinion that are saying so, but NOAA and I guess they, of all people should know.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Jethro! ,I'm struggling to find a NOAA press release that shows contrary to the general GW drift I've got;

15/8/07 Record warmth in Western U.S. in July, drought severity worsened, global temp 7th warmest for July

16/8/07 NOAA prjects Lake Superior may hit record low this fall

28/8/07 Greenhouse gasses likely drove near record U.S. Warmth in 2006

6/9/07 NOAA Reports La Nina is develping

11/9/07 Scientists fear Rare dolphin driven to extinction by human activities, other species also vulnerable

12/9/07 Warm summer in U.S. ends with record heat in south, widespread drought continues in Southeast,west.

12/9/07 Interagency report says harmful algal blooms increasing, Calls for improved research on prediction and response

12/9/07 NOAA joins international coastal cleanup effort to rid oceans and waterways of marine debris

16/10/07 NOAA,USGS,NPS Scientists document deep water coral mortality event

16/10/07 September 2007 is eighth warmest on record for contiguous United states Drought worsens across Southeast and Tennessee Valley

17/10/07 Arctic 'report card' shows continued climate changes

31/10 /07 Trnado outbreak set october record

15/11/07 NOAA still sees above average tempos for most of the U.S. and belw normal precipitation across the south.

16/11/07 October is ninth warmest on record for contiguous United States

so I must be looking in the wrong 'press releases' methinks. I do not see any evidence in a drastic change in observations/prediction from them here though.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi Jethro! ,I'm struggling to find a NOAA press release that shows contrary to the general GW drift I've got;

...

so I must be looking in the wrong 'press releases' methinks. I do not see any evidence in a drastic change in observations/prediction from them here though.

I think that's what's called a robust rebuttal.

I guess Jethro isn't referring to the paper she posted on the other site either. Its headline is 2 red blobs and 4 amber in terms of warming signal, with an overall headline to the effect of 'some warming with some mixed signals'. What's more, the headline for the Greenland ice specifically is 'recent warming associated with net ice loss'.

Sounds fairly unequivocal to me.

[jethro]

to perfect such artform, you must begin early training.