Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming

[Sam Wormley]

> Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming
> http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf

> Abstract: Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous
> source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse
> gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally
> important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected. To the extent that
> water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other
> greenhouse gases will be amplified. Models of the Earth’s climate indicate that this
> is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures
> to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other
> feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with
> other feedbacks are considered. Critics of this consensus have attempted to provide
> reasons why modeling results are overestimating the strength of this feedback.

> Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing. The range most often
> quoted for the equilibrium global mean surface temperature response to a doubling
> of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is 1.5° C to 4.5° C. If the Earth lies near
> the upper bound of this sensitivity range, climate changes in the twenty-first century
> will be profound. The range in sensitivity is primarily due to differing assumptions
> about how the Earth’s cloud distribution is maintained; all the models on which these
> estimates are based possess strong water vapor feedback. If this feedback is, in fact,
> substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of
> this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important
> policy implications. In this review, we describe the background behind the prevailing
> view on water vapor feedback and some of the arguments raised by its critics, and
> attempt to explain why these arguments have not modified the consensus within the
> climate research community.

See: http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf

[G=EMC^2]

Sam my heavy air theory predicts record high temperatures The month of March proved my theory. I predicted the tornadoes that tore up Texas. Watch out for July August,and Sept. Allstate again will run for cover. TreBert

[R Kym Horsell]

Since 1950 there have been an average of 10 March tornados in TX, but varying from 1 to more than 50.

What number do you predict for April? If you get it within 10 you're doing well.

(Past records show an average of 21 but varying from 1 to more than 60).


--
I just don't think that your ad hom follows at all.
-- Melvin of Mars, 9 Apr 2012 11.18am AEST

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 4/10/2012 8:27 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:30:43 AM UTC+10, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 7, 2012 11:43:53 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming
>>>> http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
>>>
>>>> Abstract: Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous
>>>> source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse
>>>> gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally
>>>> important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected.

>>>> Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing.
>>>

>>> See: http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
>>
>> Sam my heavy air theory predicts record high temperatures The month of March proved my theory. I predicted the tornadoes that tore up Texas. Watch out for July August,and Sept. Allstate again will run for cover. TreBert
>
>
> Since 1950 there have been an average of 10 March tornados in TX, but varying from 1 to more than 50.
>
> What number do you predict for April? If you get it within 10 you're doing well.
>
> (Past records show an average of 21 but varying from 1 to more than 60).

Kym, in spite of your claims (and those above) that climate change
global warming mechanisms are settled by a science consensus, we see
above the quote indicating "uncertainty". And that is disturbing.

Especially since science is determined by correct predictions rather
than a democratic vote.

And therefore I think you can see that Trebert's "heavy air" theory, is
the ONLY theory that is correct and correctly predicts outcomes.

As far as I'm concerned that is the END of this debate.

[R Kym Horsell]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:04:33 PM UTC+10, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 8:27 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:30:43 AM UTC+10, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 7, 2012 11:43:53 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>> Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming
> >>>> http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
> >>>
> >>>> Abstract: Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous
> >>>> source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse
> >>>> gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally
> >>>> important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected.
>
> >>>> Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing.
> >>>
> >>> See: http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
> >>
> >> Sam my heavy air theory predicts record high temperatures The month of March proved my theory. I predicted the tornadoes that tore up Texas. Watch out for July August,and Sept. Allstate again will run for cover. TreBert
> >
> >
> > Since 1950 there have been an average of 10 March tornados in TX, but varying from 1 to more than 50.
> >
> > What number do you predict for April? If you get it within 10 you're doing well.
> >
> > (Past records show an average of 21 but varying from 1 to more than 60).
>
>
> Kym, in spite of your claims (and those above) that climate change
> global warming mechanisms are settled by a science consensus, we see
> above the quote indicating "uncertainty". And that is disturbing.

...

Yes, I know. A lot of things are disturbing.

We are quite sure that the odds of a head on the toss of a fair coin
is 50/50, yet we don't know which tosses will produce heads.

I guess that means -- in denialist parlance -- there is no consensus on
the odds of a head on the toss of a fair coin.

As you say -- this is disturbing.

--
Here's the invention: It's unbreakable computer security.
It's the oldest cypher in the book: A one-time pad. [...]
So just how can a true random sequence of numbers (say 8 bit bytes) be
generated with proper random characteristics? The usual thing of
radioactive sources or white noise do not seem fast enough. Microwave
noise perhaps? since the key is as big as the message you don't want to
use a lot of time filling the key memory.
-- BJA...@teranews.com <be...@iwaynet.net>, 02 Mar 2012 18:45

[G=EMC^2]

April is now one third over. My "heavy air theory" gives storms a greater force. Not just shingles but the whole roof blown away.18 wheelers blown up in the air. Damage not in millions,but billions. Allstate might hid in China. Flood damage even worse. Best to watch for changes in Jet Stream. Best to look at the size of hail stones. My "Heavy Air'will show they have to be getting bigger and bigger over time.They can kill. Ruin cars,and roofs of homes. I will skip April and predict May will cause flooding along all of the Gulf coastal states Texas hit hardest state,and New Orleans the hardest hit city.In the near future New Orleans will be a ghost town Its Location makes that one of my easiest predictions. TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/11/12 8:26 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:

>
> April is now one third over. My "heavy air theory" gives storms a greater force. Not just shingles but the whole roof blown away.18 wheelers blown up in the air. Damage not in millions,but billions. Allstate might hid in China. Flood damage even worse. Best to watch for changes in Jet Stream. Best to look at the size of hail stones. My "Heavy Air'will show they have to be getting bigger and bigger over time.They can kill. Ruin cars,and roofs of homes. I will skip April and predict May will cause flooding along all of the Gulf coastal states Texas hit hardest state,and New Orleans the hardest hit city.In the near future New Orleans will be a ghost town Its Location makes that one of my easiest predictions. TreBert

What's different in your heavy air theory comparing now to the 1950s?

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:43:53 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming
> > http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
>
> > Abstract: Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous
> > source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse
> > gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally
> > important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected. To the extent that
> > water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other
> > greenhouse gases will be amplified. Models of the Earth’s climate indicate that this
> > is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures
> > to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other
> > feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with
> > other feedbacks are considered. Critics of this consensus have attempted to provide
> > reasons why modeling results are overestimating the strength of this feedback.
>
> > Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing. The range most often
> > quoted for the equilibrium global mean surface temperature response to a doubling
> > of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is 1.5° C to 4.5° C. If the Earth lies near

> > the upper bound of this sensitivity range, climate changes in the twenty-?rst century

> > will be profound. The range in sensitivity is primarily due to differing assumptions
> > about how the Earth’s cloud distribution is maintained; all the models on which these
> > estimates are based possess strong water vapor feedback. If this feedback is, in fact,
> > substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of
> > this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important
> > policy implications. In this review, we describe the background behind the prevailing
> > view on water vapor feedback and some of the arguments raised by its critics, and
> > attempt to explain why these arguments have not modified the consensus within the
> > climate research community.
>
> See: http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf

Note that the end of the most recent glaciation event occured with
a mere 1.5c increase in global average temperature. Humanity has
already put in more than 1c worth of CO2 into the atmosphere,
biosphere, and hydrosphere.


--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

great study from 2000. in fact,
just as good in its way, as _A Vast Machine_ from 2011. although
I suppose it would make Confirmerists go pale,
Denierists should not so readily gloat.

(spent about an hour with it, so far .-)

NB, Shackleton et al was the study,
showing that a spike of CO2 *preceded* glaciation, but
that is very old.

> >    See:http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
>
> Note that the end of the most recent glaciation event occured with
> a mere 1.5c increase in global average temperature.

> "Schools are to teach." Bob C.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

now, this is why you should read the ****, and pick something out of
it
that is not undigested corn, before you blast us with a citte.

[G=EMC^2]

Sam its heavier. More water molecules per square inch. Weight makes for more force. More moisture means flooding rains,and hail stones that can kill. TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

Cubic inch?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

one of you clowns;
thank you.

>    http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

this is good; it dovetails nicely with what's-his-name,
the guy that was fired from NASA, and his "paper," but
it could be basketweaving. I mean,
it usually really is just basketweaving, given superadequate
basketweaving materials.

thus quoth:
Cloud anvils form near the tops of convective regions, and the more
condensate
(primarily ice) that is held in these regions without precipitating,
the moister the
atmosphere will be. As an air parcel is expelled from a convective
region and
begins to subside and warm, this ice must first sublimate or fall and
evaporate into
unsaturated layers before the relative humidity can begin to fall. One
can argue
that the relative humidity of the tropics will decrease if the amount
of condensate
produced in the convective outflows decreases (56).

A prerequisite for the plausibility of this argument is robust
evidence for an
effect of condensate on the present-day humidity distribution, since
we require
this effect to weaken as the climate warms in order to weaken the
water vapor
feedback. This case has not been made convincingly. Indirect evidence
to the
contrary is provided by the tropical trajectory studies referenced
earlier, in which
models with no condensate are able to reproduce much of the observed
humidity
distribution. Additionally, many climate models attempt to incorporate
prediction
equations for the condensed phases ofwater. While modifications to
these schemes
certainly have a dramatic influence on cloud feedback (71), there are
no reports
that the prediction of condensate reduces water vapor feedback.

The intuition on which this argument is based is that the convection
in a warmer
climate will be more intense, but occupy a smaller fraction of the
horizontal area
of the tropics at any one time. There is no direct evidence for this
claim at present.

[Bill Ward]

They always save the best for last.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

Come on Sam, square inch, cubic inch, hey, it's CLIMATE SCIENCE! What
matters is that it's HEAVY AIR. And Heavy air is causing all all the
extreme weather! Well, er, I mean CO2 is causing "heavy air" which is
causing all the extreme weather! I think I'm starting to get the hang of
this "climate science" stuff!

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

that would be from a paper published in 2000.

[Bill Snyder]

Nobody cares. Let us know if you ever start to get the hang of
this "honesty" stuff.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Bruce Richmond]

Put an ice cube in a glass of water and measure the temperature as
heat is absorbed from the room. It stays, for all practical purposes
the same temperature till all the ice melts. The temperature will
then rise as more heat is absorbed from the room.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion

"The enthalpy of fusion is a latent heat, because during melting the
introduction of heat cannot be observed as a temperature change, as
the temperature remains constant during the process."

Humanity started adding heat after most of the ice was gone.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

On Apr 13, 4:12 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

between the four of you,
you are like about half a sillion clowns.