Is AGW the end all? Will AGW create catastrophes of apocalyptic proportions? By reading various posts here, a good deal of people feel this way. So, when is it going to be...2100? 2200?

The fact of the matter is that behind the scenes of this World Wide AGW distraction, there is a growing threat to humanity that will happen SOONER than AGW (if you believe in AGW). It stems from the middle east and is based on economics and religion...prosperity.

If we are discussing the harmful, apocalyptic-like effects of AGW, surely a different view of an apocalypse is relevant. If the point of this forum is to discuss the fate of the world, will I be allowed to shed light on a different, yet very likely scenario?

What do you say Brett, are you going to allow a fellow AGW blogger compare scenarios? Is it to real and scary for you to post? Dont give me the its off topic crap, when the topic itself is the fate of the world.

So the question...Which is more likely to effect humanity sooner, AGW or World War? This is a fair and on topic question. Can we debate or will this voice of reason and logic be shut down to make room for the growing, lop sided distraction of AGW? Any chance you can make this a subject of discussion?

There are actually a number of positive feedback mechanisms with respect to rising CO2 levesl and global warming.

First and formost is the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas. So, the affect of CO2 is amplified by the increse in water vapor. I note that this finind does not contradict that affect.

Second is the decrease in snow and ice coverage. Snow and ice reflect sunlight directly without allowing for warming. There is a huge amount of seasonal snow in the northern hemisphere and its extent has fallen dramatically as the globe has warmed. Likewise, we see post about sea ice coverage decreasing in the NH. This feedback is very significant and may be accelerating.

Third feedback is the change in cloud cover that this article refers to. They found it in the tropics, but have no comment about the rest of the world. So, while the tropics may not warm as much as predicted, that does not mean much for the rest of the world.

The NOAA climate models forecast a warm fall for central Alaska, but Fairbanks has been running much below normal.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PAEI/2007/9/20/CustomHistory.html?dayend=6&monthend=11&yearend=2007&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Is it possible the models are wrong?

"Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades." Spencer said.

Garbage In Gospel Out - GIGO

Amazing thought. If you make a model's "forcing" or "feedback" respond as they do in NATURE the computer models would predict less heating.

Adding more moisture to a thermodynamic system with a static heat source will act as a coolant because the static heat source has more matter to heat. Cirrus clouds, since they are formed above 20,000 feet also are very cold. I'm suspect as to how much "heat" they can trap. As they warm they will become less dense and gain altitude while losing energy.

Does anyone know if these models are including the cooling effect of convection?

Any model or person that suggests "heat" is trapped in a convective system needs to rework their process.

I can't find Dr. Spencer's email to ask "How much heat cirrus clouds are supposed to trap".

Regards,

Steve

I only have second hand information, and so I hope I am stating the facts properly, but I believe that Lindzen/NASA in 2001, following up on an earlier study by NASA's Y.C. Sud, and followed by Chen of Columbia U. and NASA's Weilicki, were proposing something related.

They reported a "heat vent" over the Pacific which released extra heat when SST rose. They thought they saw a systematic response by the cirrus cloud cover. When SST warmed, extra evaporation resulted in more rain from low cloud cover, and decreased cirrus cloud cover. The combination of more reflective low clouds and a decrease in heat-trapping cirrus clouds, plus additional cool dry downdrafts of air resulted in surface cooling.

The venting capacity was non-trivial. They estimated that it emitted a heat energy in the 1980's-90s equivalent to what was then the best estimate of the effect of an instananeous doubling of CO2.

No doubt Dr. Christy is not alone in his hope that this time climate modellers will incorporate this effect into their GCMs.

Brett - should have said "Dr. Spencer", not "Dr. Christy" in my recent post.

NGW Steve,

You can't "trap" heat in any system. If thermal conductivity is reduced, dT increases. A larger dT drives the heat flow back to equilibrium.

Energy has to be conserved. You can put a lid on a pot to increase the temperature, but the energy will get out one way or another.

The problem is, the tropics are not warming. At least not where they should be. The AGW signal for the tropics should be around 12000-18000 feet MSL. As far as I can tell, the tropics have been neutral temperaure wise. Most of the emphasis this year has been centered around the high mid-latitudes and artic regions. Yet, there has been no AGW footprint in the tropics.

Another fly in the ointment is that since 2004, globally, oceanic SSTs have slightly cooled. Almost all of the oceanic warming is in the high mid-latitudes and not the tropics.

Brett, it's interesting how you picked up this paper but somehow missed the one showing the apparent beginning of the saturation of the ocean CO2 sink. At least this one wasn't from the Torygraph. Reply: Steve, I did a blog on ocean CO2 saturation not too long ago.

BTW, while the physics of disproving the "iris" is too diffcult for non-experts, another test is whether the low sensitivity it implies is plausible in terms of historical climate and in particular the Pleistocene glacial cycles. The latter can't be made to work with a sensitivity much below 3C. Lindzen dodges this question by saying it's not his field. It's not Roy Spencer's either, but then neither is the subject matter of this paper. I suppose we should be on the lookout for a Lindzen paper defending the continued Spencer + Christy low-balling of the atmospheric temp data.

ClaudeC, IIRC Chen and Wielicki had roles in *disproving* the "iris" idea. Also, Lindzen has been flogging the "iris" (or some variant thereof) for on the order of twenty years. See here e.g. (and I think this exchange may have been the key event in him deciding that he didn't need to comment on the implications of paleoclimate for the "iris").

Steve Bloom: BTW, while the physics of disproving the "iris" is too difficult for non-experts...

So it has been disproved -- it's just too difficult for us non-experts to understand. Good to know. In Bloom we trust.

NGW Steve,

The only way heat can escape from the atmosphere is via radiation since earth exists in a vacuum called outer space. It is simply not possible for convection to transport heat to outer space. Convection can transport heat to higher elevations, but not all the way to outer space.

As a planets gaseous atmosphere grows thicker, the temperature on the surface warms even if the amount of energy input stays the same. It is similar to putting on a thicker blanket.

Thicker Atmospheres = Warmer Surface Temps

Climate computer models include convection. However, convection by itself can not transport heat out of the atmosphere.

JP,
Climate of course is an average and ten years is about the minimum. Otherwise, one could confuse weather anomolies for climate.

Not clear from your post if you are averaging tropical temperatures or instead suggesting that recent La Nina conditions may be indicating a change in the climate trend.

Steve Bloom,

Could you elaborate on what "iris" is?

Thanks!

Andrew,
This post kind of caught me by surprise. Very little is published about the tropics. There has been a plethora of studies and articles published about the artic sea ice these past 30 months or so.

If one was to look at rawinsonde data across the tropics the last 30 years, one would be hard press to point to a AGW footprint. One could also look at surface data, and it would be difficult to find anything unusual besides the normal oscillations. Justt examining cirrus or cirrus stratus cloud cover, without any supporting surface or synoptic analysis is pointless.

Here's a link that describes the tropical AGW footprint taken from the IPCC:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html

Patrick Henry,

I'm not an expert in thermodynamics. What is dT,and how is it used?

Thanks

It is simply not possible for convection to transport heat to outer space

Mark,

Heat convects to the upper atmosphere and radiates out into space. Your comment is analogous to saying that a school bus can't transport children to school, because it can't drive inside the classroom. The fact that they had to walk the last 50 feet doesn't mean they didn't ride the bus the other 99% of the journey.

The only way heat can escape from the atmosphere is via radiation since earth exists in a vacuum called outer space. It is simply not possible for convection to transport heat to outer space. Convection can transport heat to higher elevations, but not all the way to outer space.

There you go again, Andrew, spouting those unproven theories of yours. You're probably a round-earther too. If you're not careful, we'll be talking about Planck again.

Andrew, Lindzen's basic idea was that in the tropics increasing evaporation from warming would increase low clouds and decrease high clouds so as to damp the warming (negative feedback). One of the implications of the "iris" is that the upper troposphere should be drying out. Instead, observations (go here and scroll down to paper 24) show that it's getting wetter. There are earlier papers that disproved the "iris" on a theoretical basis, but as I said above it's very hard to follow that material. The observations paper was really the coup de grace, though.

Sure, Brett, but the newest paper (discussed here along with the two ocean ones you covered) detects a trend in the atmosphere. This is a huge development, BTW (and very unpleasant to see at this early date.)

Steve: I'll check it out

Heat convects to the upper atmosphere and radiates out into space. Your comment is analogous to saying that a school bus can't transport children to school, because it can't drive inside the classroom. The fact that they had to walk the last 50 feet doesn't mean they didn't ride the bus the other 99% of the journey.

A better analogy is a public transit system, instead of a school bus. Suppose the children have to ride multiple buses, and pay a fare on each. The fact that a sizable portion of the children do NOT make it to school does, in fact, demonstrate that some of the children are missing a transfer along the way.

cmbclean,

dT is just the temperature difference between two points. The simplest view of diffusive or radiative heat flow is

E = K dT/dx

where dT is the temperature difference, dx is the distance, and K is a coefficient of thermal conductivity.

Increased GHG causes K to decrease, which forces dT to increase - the basic concept behind global warming. dx (the height of the atmosphere) is fixed, as is E more or less (incoming solar radiation.)

Andrew,

The only way heat can escape from the atmosphere is via radiation since earth exists in a vacuum called outer space.

Within the troposphere convection is the primary means for transferring energy from the surface to the tropopause. If the temp of the surface is 100 C in the tropics, by the time the convection cell reaches the troposphere it is -80 C.

A 180 C difference. From that point radiation takes over as the primary means for energy transfer since there is too little mass and heat for convection to occur. So what is your point?

As a planets gaseous atmosphere grows thicker, the temperature on the surface warms even if the amount of energy input stays the same. It is similar to putting on a thicker blanket.

Let�s examine how thick our "blanket" was Pre-Industrial Revolution, a.k.a. The Little Ice Age. Our Atmosphere is 5000 trillion metric tons today. Without the additional ~250 billion tons of CO2 and the additional ~500 billion tons of Water Vapor that has been added since LIA the atmosphere was ~4999.25 trillion metric tons.

Hmmm. We have added a blanket that is .015% as thick as our original "blanket". CO2 went from about .5 grams/m^3 to .7 grams/m^3. A cubic meater of dry air is 1.3 kg. So CO2 makes up .05% of the mass of a cubic meter of air.

Are you thinking that "Hey, most of the atmosphere is not GHG's." True, but when the GHG's warm, they warm the surrounding non-GHG's losing energy.

Continued in another post . . .

Andrew,

Blanket Continued . . .

Thicker Atmospheres = Warmer Surface Temps

Let's test this thought. You have a pot of hot water at say 50 C and you have a constant energy source keeping it at 50 C. You add more water at 50 C. The pot does not become warmer. It does contain more energy, but the temp remains the same. You have to increase energy to raise the temp.

Add cooler water and the temp decreases temporarily and goes back to 50 C, add hotter water and the temp increases temporarily and goes back to 50 C.

If you can explain how the temp will rise with a constant energy source, without changing the surface area I would be interested in hearing how.

Climate computer models include convection.

Can you name one?

Patrick Henry,

Thanks for the follow up. I was attempting to bait someone into explaining how this "trap" works. Andrew was nice enough to bite.

Regards,

Steve

There you go again, Andrew, spouting those unproven theories of yours. You're probably a round-earther too. If you're not careful, we'll be talking about Planck again.

Brookline Tom,

My favorite BS'er. Bad memory plus poor researcher. You can search through all of my posts and see that I'm quite clear about how convection works and where it stops in the atmosphere.

Speaking of Planck. I have one reply from a physicist so far, he was particularly amused by your attempted use of Planck and confused how you concluded that I somehow "denied" quantum from any of my statements.

I'll post as soon as I have a few replies so as not to exclude other possible responses.

You sure you don't want to get an "expert" of your own? Wouldn't want to be accused of "Swift Boating" you. Perhaps you like the idea of being able to tell your friends that some AGW contrarian (love that one:) is "Planck's Law'ing" you :) Except you won't get a Purple Heart for shooting yourself.

Strange, not sure what you thought you had to gain?

My question was "How can Plank's Law be used to negate the effects of the specific heat of a GHG?" Followed with an attachment of our exchange.

You care to debate Andrew's "Blanket" theory? Perhaps if you both put your minds to it, :) never mind.

Nice, just saw your reply to Patrick Henry. Please take a hard stance as you did before, this should be entertaining.

So are the "children" that don't make it to school playing hooky? It appears you have missed several classes yourself :) How much was the fare?

Please . . . :)

Regards,

Steve

Thanks for the follow up. I was attempting to bait someone into explaining how this "trap" works. Andrew was nice enough to bite.

I see that NGW Steve still refuses to embrace modern physics. I wonder if he's had any replies to all those letters he sent out.

To quote Ogden Nash: "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."

Cirrus Clouds, Global Warming, Climate Models, Climate Change, Heat Trapping. If you get a chance this article is kind of lengthy but it has a lot of exposition on a lot of different topics. Link below.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm

"And they always say things like that the snow is a white blanket
after a winter storm.
Oh it is, is it, all right then, you sleep under a six-inch blanket of
snow and I'll sleep under a half-inch blanket of unpoetical
blanket material and we'll see which one keeps warm"
-Ogden Nash

I couldn't resist. All this talk about blankets and then bt went and quoted ogden nash. Great poem though, "Very Like a Whale".

Dealing with clouds; has anyone bothered to read any of Svensmark's work dealing with cosmic rays and clouds? I'll put a link to some of his papers once I find them again later. </