Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

For climate change deniers, no doubt.

For the preponderance of climatologists and the global community of nations, urban planners, agricultural forecasters, military strategists, heads of industry, economists, and concerned folks everywhere, no.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

 

So many unfounded assertions, so little time. As in, the "CO2 and H2O have nearly identical..." comment. Frankly not substantively true. So, if we start there, the credibility of the post suffers.

 

Exactly right....

 

Why not? What are you thinking is in play that keeps the water cycle from continually recyling H2O molecules via precipitation and evaporation processes while at the same time sustaining the same concentration?

WV raises the temperature ONLY if something else raises the temperature first. It cannot initiate a temperature increase/decrease on its own over climate scales. But, once something does cause the temperature to increase/decrease WV and temperature will both increase/decrease until a new equilibrium level is achieved. Again, once the new equilibrium level is achieved the feedback stops. So when we say WV does not "force" the temperature I guess what we really mean is that WV does not force the temperature while the equilibrium is locked in. However, if the equilibrium is perturbed on the WV side then evaporation/precipitation processes work to reestablish it. But, if the equilibrium is perturbed on the temperature side (from CO2 for example) then evaporation dominates to bring the concentration towards the new higher equilibrium level.

Short term WV concentrations quickly reestablish parity with the equilibrium level after perturbations cause it to deviate from that level. This consistency in the WV concentration over climate scales helps stabilize the temperature. WV concentration is stable at climate scales largely because H2O lifespan is short. Contrast this with CO2's long lifespan which tends to cause it to accumulate in the atmosphere.

CO2 acts like an a one-way insulator. It is transparent to incoming radiation from the Sun, but opaque to outgoing radiation from Earth.

Correct. More WV means more clouds which reflect incoming radiation away. Evaporation slows down which in turn lowers WV concentration. Less WV means less clouds which means more incoming radiation reaching the surface. This speeds up evaporation which in turn increases WV concentration again. And the cycle repeats indefinitely.

Yes, the concentration is sustained.

Our short range weather models are based on "the same kind of BS" too though. Short range weather modeling predates climate modeling.

 

Recycling of molecules that sustains the same concentration means the concentration is not short-lived! This isn't an issue of individual molecules, it is an issue of the concentration. It is the concentration that creates the blanket.

That is *NOT* what the article you referenced said. It says that WV can't cause temperature increases because it is too short-lived in the atmosphere.

This is where the contradiction just floors me.

It cannot initiate a temperature increase/decrease on its own over climate scales. But, once something does cause the temperature to increase/decrease WV and temperature will both increase/decrease until a new equilibrium level is achieved. Again, once the new equilibrium level is achieved the feedback stops. So when we say WV does not "force" the temperature I guess what we really mean is that WV does not force the temperature while the equilibrium is locked in. However, if the equilibrium is perturbed on the WV side then evaporation/precipitation processes work to reestablish it. But, if the equilibrium is perturbed on the temperature side (from CO2 for example) then evaporation dominates to bring the concentration towards the new higher equilibrium level.[/quote]

The *true* forcing element is the energy from the sun. It is the re-radiated energy, i.e. the infrared, that causes the heating, not CO2. It is the WV that is the main component of the blanket, not CO2. If the WV wasn't there the IR would just escape into space.



[quote[Short term WV concentrations quickly reestablish parity with the equilibrium level after perturbations cause it to deviate from that level. This consistency in the WV concentration over climate scales helps stabilize the temperature. WV concentration is stable at climate scales largely because H2O lifespan is short. Contrast this with CO2's long lifespan which tends to cause it to accumulate in the atmosphere.[/quote]

More contradiction! If H2O lifespan is short then how does it block IR from escaping into space?

But supposedly it is the WV that is most opaque, not CO2.

But it also means more IR escaping into space which cools the atmosphere.

But you just said above that is isn't.

The contradictions just continue. WV is sustained over time but it isn't. Cognitive dissonance at its finest!

 

So once again we come to the point where we are both aware of how little you know. Instead of being so intractably wrong all the time you could try a little education. Heat capacities are taught in first year college chemistry.

 

If that's the take away you got from the article then you've totally missed the point.

Oh, that *IS* what the article is saying. The article may be written at level that requires a meteorological background to interpret and perhaps that's where the breakdown is. I'm trying to do the interpretation. And yes, I'm clearly failing. I'm just not really sure how how else to word it though. I highly recommend getting 1) a dynamic meteorology textbook 2) a synoptic scale meteorology textbook and 3) a mesoscale meteorology textbook. These concepts are explained in depth in these textbook. All of the thermodynamic calculations for making the calculations are included. The idea that WV is not a forcing mechanism for temperature on climate scales, but only an amplifier has been known for decades long before anyone cared about global warming. It isn't some esoteric idea that meteorologists made up just because. There is no conspiracy here.

No one is saying CO2 is a source that provides energy for the accumulated heat. It is an insulator that traps heat kind of like how a greenhouse works. The way in which it traps heat is different than the way WV traps heat. This difference is largely the result of the microphysical behavior of the way the molecule interacts with photons.

Again, you are totally missing the point. The concentration is stable. But, because an H2O molecule has a short lifespan it does NOT tend to accumulate in the atmosphere. That is a significant contributing factor that makes WV concentration so stable over climate scales. CO2 molecules have long lifespans so the concentration tends to increase over climate scales. What specifically are saying is being contradicted here?

WV is opaque to both incoming and outgoing radiation. That is another contributing factor that make the WV concentration stable over climate scales due to the way it drives evaporation and precipitation processes. CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation and opaque to outgoing radiation. So whereas WV acts more like a barrier with a mirror on both sides CO2 acts like a window from the top (facing the Sun) and a mirror from the bottom (facing the Earth). I don't know how to make that any more clear.

No. More WV and more clouds mean less radiation from Earth is escaping into space and less radiation from the Sun making it to the surface. That's why the daily highs and lows are closer together in humid climates and are far apart in dry climates.

I said no such thing. In fact, multiple times I said the concentration is sustained and stable.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about meteorological processes in general here. Let me ask you a couple of questions that may help me judge where the breakdown is happening.

1) What do you think would happen if, in one fell swoop, we could magically remove all traces of WV completely from the atmosphere all at once? How would the atmosphere evolve? What would happen to the temperature? What would happen to the WV concentration?

2) What do you think would happen if humans embarked on a mega project to pump as much WV into the air as possible in an effort to double, triple, or even increase WV concentrations by 10x what they are today? Let's say we spare no expense and pump WV like there's no tomorrow. How would the atmosphere evolve?

 

I did't research Ball. Esterbrook is a well known denier, and his work has been dismissed as laughable.

 

No, that's what the article says. I gave you the quotes right out of the article!

The *forcing* function is the sun's energy. Both WV and CO2 can only be feedback mechanisms. CO2 can't create energy by itself. If WV is long lived and traps heat then it is a positive feedback mechanism. If CO2 is long lived and traps heat then it is a positive feedback mechanism. If WV is short-lived then it really doesn't have any feedback, it is mostly neutral. You only have three choices for mechanism: positive, negative, and neutral. A mechanism can't be a combination, it has to be one of them.

If WV lets radiation (i.e. energy) in but not back out then it is a positive feedback mechanism. It can't be anything else. The fact that clouds reflect energy just controls the amount of energy that gets in, it has nothing to do with the feedback mechanism once the energy gets in.

For CO2 to be a *forcing* function it has to inject something into the system. It's basic thermodynamics that the something either has to be mass or energy. We know it can't be mass so it must be energy in order to be a forcing function. And if CO2 can't inject energy then it has to be a feedback mechanism inside the system.

CO2 may be a different feedback mechanism than WV but it is still a feedback mechanism.

I don't think I'm missing anything. Again, just because an individual molecule doesn't last long doesn't mean the concentration of WV disappears quickly. That's what the word "sustained" implies. And if the concentration stays and WV is a positive feedback mechanism then it has much more of an impact than CO2 does.

WV can't be completely opaque. WV never completely disappears from the atmosphere. I totally understand what you mean with the mirror/mirror vs window/mirror analogy. But the mirror can't be perfect or no energy would get inside the blanket for CO2 to absorb.

I think we said the same thing. If WV is short-lived then the IR gets through. If it didn't the earth would have been a cinder long before the dinosaurs lived!

How can it be short-lived *and* sustained?

1. No WV? The earth would be a lot like Mars. Hot and dry.
2. We'd get a lot more rain. *I* would expect temperatures to go up over time. It depends on how much energy the WV lets in versus how much radiation it lets out. If in and out are equal then the temp would be stable. If it lets in more than it lets out then the temp goes up. Since you can't get more out than in that case is impossible.

Answer me this: Why does it stay warmer at night when you have heavy cloud cover? Doesn't the daytime temps depend on the previous nighttime temps? If you have a lot of WV at night thus keeping temps high then isn't that a forcing function all of its own?

You might want to take a look at this peer-reviewed paper from an MIT professor. It sounds a lot like what I am saying.

http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

"Here is the problem: the physical mechanisms that determine climate sensitivity involve crucial feedback loops, and the parameter values that determine the strength (and even the 8 sign) of those feedback loops are largely unknown, and for the forseeable future may even be unknowable. This is not a shortcoming of climate science; on the contrary, climate scientists have made enormous progress in understanding the physical mechanisms involved in climate change. But part of that progress is a clearer realization that there are limits (at least currently) to our ability to pin down the strength of the key feedback loops."

"Thus the actual climate sensitivity is given by λ = λ0/(1 − f) , (2) where f (0 ≤ f ≤ 1) is the total feedback factor (which in a more complete and complex model would incorporate several feedback effects). Unfortunately, we don’t know the value of f. Roe and Baker point out that if we knew the mean and standard deviation of f, denoted by ¯f and σf respectively, and if σf is small, then the standard deviation of λ would be proportional to σf /(1 − ¯f) 2 . Thus uncertainty over λ is greatly magified by uncertainty over f, and becomes very large if f is close to 1. Likewise, if the true value of f is close to 1, climate sensitivity would be huge."
--------------------------------------------------------------

If we don't know the uncertainties associated with their models, then the climate scientists are only faking us all out when they tell us what is happening. This is quite likely why the outputs the climate scientists give us for their models continue to diverge from reality, assuming the RSS and weather balloon data is close to reality. Since the forecast for (t+1) depends on t then the uncertainties tend to accumulate as t grows.

I still wonder if we actually knew all the uncertainties that the lower bound of the climate models wouldn't be close to the RSS and weather balloon data.[/quote][/quote]

 

Strictly speaking infrared radiation is not heat. It is just the method by which energy is transferred. The heat, what we measure as temperature, is the kinetic energy of particles, not radiation. However, as the incoming solar radiation (lots and lots of photons) comes in, it gives up its energy to atoms/molecules. It is the increased motion of these atoms/molecules that we feel as heat. The heat you feel as sunlight strikes your skin is from added motion in the atoms on your outer skin.

The infrared radiation comes about because as particles absorb the incoming solar radiation (photons) they use part of the energy as added motion but also give off photons that have lower energy than the solar radiated photons. These are the infrared photons.

The thing about photons and atoms/molecules is that each type of atom/molecule absorbs photons of certain frequencies but not others. Turns out that N2 and O2, the vast majority of the atmosphere, don't absorb infrared photons, allowing the photons to pass out into space. However, Things like CO2 and H2O readily absorb photons in the infrared region. They also have the added bonus of having the capacity to carry four times as much heat as other atmospheric particles. Which means they have four times as much motion.

With this added motion they bump into other particles imparting some of their momentum. This is how earth's atmosphere is heated. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can do nothing but cause more of what we call heat.

As to water vapor, you should look into the weather patterns of the Pacific Northwest. Regardless of the season, on those days that are cloudy the nights are warm, and on those days when there are no clouds the night is cool. It is cloudy most the winter with the highs only getting to the 40's. However the coldest part of the night is typically within 5 degrees of the high. On occasion, the temperature will rise after the sun sets, as more clouds roll in.

 

I understand all that. But it is the high energy photons that are the forcing mechanisms. Not your skin.

I understand that. But it is the incoming photons from the sun that are the forcing function. All the rest is reactions from feedback mechanisms.

The thing about photons and atoms/molecules is that each type of atom/molecule absorbs photons of certain frequencies but not others. Turns out that N2 and O2, the vast majority of the atmosphere, don't absorb infrared photons, allowing the photons to pass out into space. However, Things like CO2 and H2O readily absorb photons in the infrared region. They also have the added bonus of having the capacity to carry four times as much heat as other atmospheric particles. Which means they have four times as much motion.[/quote]

I understand this also.

I understand this also. But WV does the same exact thing. You said so just above. It is the PHOTONS that are the forcing function.

I think this is exactly what *I* said.

I'm not sure what the point of this lecture is. It has nothing to do with forcing functions and feedback mechanisms.

Did you read the article I referenced?

 

NO. What happens under this scenario is that evaporation kicks into overdrive owing to massive radiation penetration at the surface lofting huge amounts of WV into the air. In as little as a few weeks the WV concentration will begin to fall back into its original equilibrium with global mean temperature with no indication that anything mysterious ever happened. There is no long term increase or decrease in the global mean temperature. We've actually ran numerical simulations confirming this hypothesis.

NO. We would not get any more rain than what was already happening. The reason is because our artificial injection of WV will suppress the natural injection of WV. Because WV has a stable equilibrium defined by the global mean temperature any attempt to increase the concentration will put downward pressure on natural evaporation while at the same time actually making it harder for us to inject it in the first place because of the vapor pressure characteristics of water. The more we pump the more pressure the atmosphere provides to resist our attempts and nature's attempts to increase it. No matter how hard and how much WV we try to pump into the air we will not be able to significantly impact the long term concentration. There is no long term increase or decrease in the global mean temperature. Again, numerical simulations confirm this hypothesis.

Also, think it about this way. If WV and temperature were in an unstable equilibrium with each other then any perturbation would cause a runaway feedback effect. So things like a hyperactive tropical cyclone season globally could jump start runaway warming due to the elevated WV concentrations. But, because WV molecule lifespans are short the perturbation is short lived and a runaway warming event is avoided...thank God.

And you misunderstood those quotes. See here for the same explanation from a different source. Also, refer to Parameterization Schemes by David Stensrud for a deep dive into the microphysics of H2O if you want to learn more with a more rigorous explanation.

The concentration is sustained...the sum total of all H2O molecules relative to the sum total of all the other molecules...the PPM value. It's the individual molecules themselves that are short-lived. The lifespan of the molecule itself (not the concentration) is part of the explanation for why WV concentrations are so stable. Again, an individual molecule is short lived, but the concentration remains stable or sustained. Read that as attempts to either remove or add WV to the atmosphere are resisted unless you first change the temperature. CO2's behavior is completely different. It does happily accumulate because it does not precipitate out like WV does.

1) The clouds block longwave (outgoing) radiation.
2) Great question. Not necessarily. Assuming there is no advective processes going on the temperature of a column of air that is said to be "dry adiabatic" will be driven almost solely by the incoming radiation. The night time low might not have any bearing on the daily high the next day if the high was achieved by a superadiabatic skin layer. Google for atmospheric soundings, skew-t charts, dry and moist adiabatic lapse, and what it means to be superadiabatic to better understand what's going on here.
3) Maybe. It depends on the state of the atmosphere at that location. But, yes, a cloudy night followed a cloud free day might yield a slightly higher daytime high temperature. But, again, not necessarily. In fact, in the midwest where mesoscale convective complexes form at night they tend to leave the soil and vegetation saturated during the day which makes it harder to for the temperatures to warm because of evapotranspiration.

I agree. Some of the feedbacks are complex and occur over large periods of time making it hard to verify theory vs. observation. That's why I always take a conservative approach to climate model outputs. I don't immediately assume we'll experience 4C/century or whatever of warming. What if it ends up only being 1C/century? Then again, what if I'm wrong? What if we're underestimating the warming? Anyway, you have to understand that H2O lifespan's mean that WV interactions are mostly a mesoscale and synoptic scale phenomenon. If our understanding is wrong about the WV cycle then our short range models (0-10 day forecasts) would be significantly less useful and possibly even completely useless. But, they're not. That tells us that we have a pretty good idea about how WV behaves.

 

If there is no WV in the atmosphere then where does the ground water come from that will evaporate? If there is ground water there *has* to be WV in the atmosphere.

Huh? Higher humidity means more water in the atmosphere to precipitate out.

Wait a minute! You asked: "What do you think would happen if humans embarked on a mega project to pump as much WV into the air as possible in an effort to double, triple, or even increase WV concentrations by 10x what they are today?"

If you artificially raise the WV concentrations then why do you even have to depend on natural injection of WV?

But you put no limit on how much WV could be injected. Did you *mean* for it to be a trick question?

But what we *do* pump into it has to go some where, right? If we can't pump *any* WV into the atmosphere then how do the concentrations go up?

No, just because they are unstable doesn't mean they will run away. They will only go so far. Just like an amplifier in saturation. If you are saying that the atmosphere, especially WV, is like an amplifier in saturation, I might buy it. But that's not what the article you reference implied.

What quotes are you talking about? The MIT professors quotes? If so, then you just employed the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. You just waved your hand magically above the keyboard and typed "you misunderstood".

Exactly what did I misunderstand? I mean this guy said exactly what your reference said, the feedback mechanisms are very well understood! What is there to misunderstand about that? The math isn't that complicated. Are you saying it is wrong?

But it isn't individual molecules taken one at a time that creates the blanket. It is all the individual molecules taken together that form the blanket. And if the concentration stays the same, as you agree with, then the number of total molecules stays about the same.

I understand exactly what you are saying about WV and CO2. But if WV *is* a positive feedback mechanism then it *will* result in higher temps. Maybe not as fast as CO2 but just as sure. If the atmosphere gets warmer from WV blocking IR from reaching space then the atmosphere *is* going to warm. And if warmer temps allow more WV in the atmosphere then WV *is* a positive feedback mechanism. So then the question becomes a matter of "how fast" which is *exactly* what the MIT guy is talking about. We simply don't fully understand the the feedback mechanisms well enough to judge.

Now you've lapsed back into local weather talk, : )

I guess that's only fair. I didn't really specify the size of the cloud cover. I would say that I wouldn't expect a "super"adiabatic situation to last very long. Not even all night. Thermodynamics and entropy should fix the differential pretty quickly.

What if you are wrong? We'll still adapt. It might cost more. The MIT professor goes into this pretty well.

I won't say anything bad about short range weather forecasts. I'm sure you've heard it all!

 

At a given temperature WV is pretty constant. Increase the temperature a little and you increase the water vapor in the air and increase the temperature more (since water vapor is a greenhouse gas)

Positive feedback

Just stop. You either don't get it or pretend you don't get it

 

Models, predictions and projections are not Science. Only peer-reviewed studies are Science.

Which word in "only peer-reviewed studies are Science" are you having such a hard time understanding?

 

Because conspiracy theory thinking does not allow for peer review

 

And we should add "...under risk of being ridiculed!" Which the extreme right doesn't seem to mind anymore. They appear to be getting used to it

 

Wonder why those scientists who disagree, 30 something of them are blacked out in MSM? I reckon if you are not being funded in the billions to arrive at what the IPCC had already declared, as a reason to tax carbon, making a relative small group of rich people richer, you do not deserve to question the research, nor be a contrary voice?

But as long as this kinda of suspect behavior goes on no one can blame critical minds for being just a little bit skeptical. Only a gullible person would not feel the hairs of skepticism stand up and take notice. Then you have the AGW proponents utter inane things like scientific certainty and that doesn't sound like science, but politics. And politics and lying go hand in hand. It is possible that billions of bucks injected into these co2 studies, has literally corrupted the science, as well as the political angle, and only time and continued inaccurate predictive modeling will eventually reveal the truth of the matter. Anytime trillions of bucks, over time, with this carbon tax scheme, are involved, all bets are off when it comes to such a soft science as climatology. What they know is vastly overwhelmed by what they do not know, and one wonders how much the money involved affects this. Tremendous claims have been made from such a set of limited knowledge and there are graphs from 1993, which seem to show little correlation between co2 and warming. These were from geological studies and seem to be missing from the current research, or that is what I understand.

There has never been a serious debate from the scientists who question what you believe in, and those scientists who are paid good money to validate the exclamations of the IPCC. Why is this? Why the MSM black out of these contrary voices? Sure as hell doesn't look like science to me. Remember how Einstein was under fire as he waited for years for an eclipse which might give evidence to back up his theory? Why is this serious questioning and debate absent here? And there are credible contrary voices. Yet no one allows them to present them. Yet it does not bother you...in the least. Why?

 

[/QUOTE]

Great example of cartoon-thinking.

 

Because scientists' opinions are not Science. Only thing that is Science is peer-reviewed research.

 

Which only proves that cartoon-thinking is more rational than conspiracy-theory-thinking.