Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

So what? You didn't answer my question!

 

Certainly did. Rain keeps WV from spiraling by itself. CO2 takes far longer to leave the atmosphere.

 

Fossil fuels are dirty...they're expensive...they cause wars...they empower petrodictators like Putin and the Saudi princes...why would anyone favor that mess over renewable...

Oh yea...and they're warming out planet and are going to cause sea levels to rise.

I don't get it.

Mitigation is already estimated to be more expensive now that 10 years ago...and the longer we dither...the more expensive it will be...

Until we wait to long at which time the effects will be VERY devastating.

You think Syria is bad? Wait till the coasts Africa and India etc are underwater and those people all have to move quickly

 

But WV is not 100% reflective.

But isn't that what makes WV a feedback mechanism? As the temp goes up the atmosphere can hold more WV. If the WV traps more heat, thus raising the temp, then it should be able to hold more WV.

I understand that if the temp remains the same that excess WV will precipitate out. But for the temp to remain the same in the face of more trapped IR, meaning higher temps, then WV can't be a feedback mechanism.

It just seems like I'm getting two different stories.
Story 1: WV is a greenhouse gas, trapping IR and raising the temp.
Story 2: WV is not a greenhouse gas, it doesn't trap IR, and therefore it can't raise the temp by itself.

So which one is right?

 

RAIN....Unless something "forces" more WV into the air it will "self cleanse". You keep "not understanding" that and pretend you have some science to claim that rain is not self limiting on the amount of WV in the air

 

Then, in essence, you are saying WV is NOT a greenhouse gas. It is not a feedback mechanism. By itself it can't block IR thus raising the temp all by itself. That only CO2 can block IR thus raising the temp and allowing WV to go up.

 

For it to self-cleanse doesn't the temp have to go down thus causing the precipitation? What causes the temp to go down when the WV is trapping even more heat?

The only conclusion your explanation provides is that WV is not a greenhouse gas and is not a feedback mechanism, it can't raise the temperature all by itself.

 

No, that's totally wrong. Your graph is of a single ice core spot, so it has no applicability to average global temperature. And it doesn't even say what the "0" time baseline was. That zero point could have been thousands of years ago.

But you didn't use google, you used denier conspiracy blogs. If you had used google, you couldn't have missed all the data that debunks your conspiracy theory.

For example, Marcott et al 2013

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2013/03/07/339.6124.1198.DC1/Marcott.SM.pdf

And Shakun et al 2012

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Put those together, and add in the projections, and it looks like this.



The earth had been slowly cooling for about 8000 years prior to the recent fast warmup. That's not debatable. And the fact that the current fast warming spike isn't part of any "natural cycle" isn't debatable either. All the denier theories are all contradicted by the observed data, therefore those theories are wrong.

 

Yes and no. I mean it's definitely a GHG and it definitely has some feedback with the temperature, but I don't think its either of those in the way you're thinking about it. I wonder if the confusion is in how you use the term feedback in the electronics industry. I'm not an electronics person myself so I know very little about what it means to have feedback in that realm, but I suspect it's nothing like how feedback processes work in the atmosphere.

 

Along the same lines one argument I see is that temperatures or CO2 concentration have been higher in the past. Yeah, absolutely. AGW proponents don't disagree. The problem is the rate of change we're seeing.. We're seeing 20ppm/decade of CO2 accumulation. At that rate we'll see 4000ppm in less than 2000 years! We're seeing almost 0.2C/decade of warming. That's 20C per 1000 years! In geological timescales those are moonshots straight up. To say this isn't normal is an understatement of epic proportions.

 

Are you BLIND? The zero point is TODAY!

wikipedia: "The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period, which occurred from c. 110,000 – c. 11,700 years ago.

livescience: "The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 1.8 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago.

bbc: "There have been many ice ages during the last 2.6 million years but when people talk about the Ice Age, they are often referring to the most recent glacial period, which peaked about 21,000 years ago and ended about 11,500 years ago."

My graph shows the last ice age and is no different than what your references say.

Please note that your graph depends on the output of the climate models which even the RSS group is beginning to question. Even they admit that the rate of increase is *NOT* what the models show.

Try again!

 

So you are unaware that the upper atmosphere is cooler...like a lot? Add that to the list of things you appear unaware of.

And no one has ever said WV by itself is a positive feedback mechanism. In combination with a forcing agent like CO2 it is part of that equation.

Are you playing dumb or is this a cynical ruse?

 

Feedback is feedback. Labor contractions generate more and deeper contractions. Blood clotting causes more and greater blood clotting.

I simply can't see how WV is not a feedback mechanism, a positive one. Now it may have a very low loop gain all by itself and that is why temp increases based solely on WV happens slowly over geological time periods. CO2 may have a much higher loop gain.

But I can't find much literature on the internet that even talks about this!

 

So what if the upper atmosphere is cooler? That just means the heat is being trapped below it!

And if you would keep up with the thread you would know that this has been discussed before.

According to wikipedia: "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. "

From the journal Science:
"Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences who specializes in research on climate, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere. And because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. This process is known as water vapor feedback and is responsible for a significant portion of the warming predicted to occur over the next century."

“It’s a vicious cycle – warmer temperatures mean higher humidity, which in turn leads to even more warming,” Dessler explains."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Now CO2 may *add* to the value of the feedback loop but even if it falls to zero there should still be feedback from the WV.

This is why I initially drew the system picture as I did:




Are *you* playing dumb?

 

If the WV saturation level goes up as the temp goes up then what causes the effect to be short-lived? We discussed this before. The saturation level in the atmosphere is "sustained" at a higher level by the higher temps until something else changes it.

 

And it hits the cooler upper atmosphere and condenses into rain and that cycle repeats. Add a forcing agent (CO) and more water is evaporated.


How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

 

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.









If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

 

http://www.science20.com/news_accou...r_vapor_when_positive_feedback_is_a_bad_thing

Sorry I don't have any hand drawn bullshit to pretend I'm a real scientist

 

Then how does the lower atmosphere remain warmner?

And as the temp goes up the atmosphere can hold more WV.

If water vapor is a greenhouse gas then it is a positive feedback mechanism all by itself!

And if the WV raises the temp then doesn't that also result in even more raising of the temp? You still don't show what the feedback value is for WV by itself.

As the temp goes up the relative humidity stays the same even with more WV in the atmosphere. It is the relative humidity that determines when it rains and falls.

Again, I understand this! What do you think my diagram shows!

 

I don't know where you got this but NOAA disagrees!

------------------------------------------
Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.

----------------------------------------

It seems that my point is actually confirmed as I do more research.

 

I repeat

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same.

Nowhere does the NOAA say anthing different

They talk about water vapor as PART of a feedback loop.

PART.

 

I've already read this.

I disagree with this part:

"The water vapor feedback mechanism works in the following way: as the atmosphere warms due to human-caused increases in carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons, water vapor increases, trapping more heat in the atmosphere, which in turn causes a further increase in water vapor."

They attribute *NONE* of the warming to the WV feedback mechanism itself. They say it is only CO2, CH4, N2O, and various CF's.

The problem is that you don't even *KNOW* enough to make handdrawn figures showing how things work! You didn't even realize that my diagram shows exactly what you posted, that CO2 feeds into WV to increase the warming!

 

I suppose this one is the post that most accurately demonstrates the lengths to which the faithful will go to demand that their pet little theory is correct. Facts no longer matter, only the dogma, only the faith. For some who profess their love of peer reviewed science it's astonishing for us who watch to see science so readily ignored by the faithful proponents.

Try this, turn off the sun. See what happens.

 

Do you have a chart or graph or something that shows solar irradiance has been increasing the last 100 years?

 

Good God, man! Did you even bother to READ the quote or did it just go over your head?

"As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. "

What in Pete's name do you think this is describing?

Again, I don't know where you got your quote from but it is in conflict with NOAA.

NASA says: "The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere."

Now, having thought about one of your earlier statements about the stratosphere cooling, that might explain why the climate models are digressing more and more from reality.

A cooler stratosphere means less WV there and it probably lowers the amount of WV in the upper troposphere as well. Less WV means less blocking of IR radiating from the earth meaning less accumulation of heat. If the climate models have not been modified to account for this then they will continue to show a rate of increase that doesn't match reality.

I need to look around and see if I can find data on the amount of WV in the atmosphere at various levels to see if total WV is actually going down as you imply. And to see if any of the climate models have been modified appropriately if so.