What is science?

[billvon 3,091]

>You know that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. And you know that it is by far the most
>significant GG. So if you are looking for a global warming signal from CO2, you will find the
> greatest effect in a place that doesn't have water vapor.

That would be true if they both blocked the same IR wavelengths. But they don't; they block mostly different spectra. So their attenuations sum, and you see the same absolute signal in places with high water vapor and low water vapor.

The RATIOS of the attenuations are different, of course, and thus if you are comparing one to the other, you'd see it more prominently in dry areas. But the SIGNAL is similar in both cases.

>That's why AGW theory predicted all along that there would be greatest warming at the poles.

Hmm. I thought it was due to the loss of ice becoming a positive feedback (dark water absorbs more energy) and the normal transport of heat to the poles via the polar cells. That's why the North Pole is warming rapidly (loss of thin floating ice exposes water, heat transport from warmer land near that pole) and the South Pole is barely moving (loss of miles-thick ice takes centuries, and there's not much land near the South Pole.) One of the big arguments right now is which mechanism is more important.

[lawrocket 3]

  billvon

>You know that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. And you know that it is by far the most
>significant GG. So if you are looking for a global warming signal from CO2, you will find the
> greatest effect in a place that doesn't have water vapor.

That would be true if they both blocked the same IR wavelengths. But they don't; they block mostly different spectra. So their attenuations sum, and you see the same absolute signal in places with high water vapor and low water vapor.

Both have thermal effect. If one is measuring temperatures and wants as clean of a signal as possible, a very dry climate is a place to pick it up.

The decreased albedo in the North Pole is another mechanism. You are correct. This, however, makes the measurement itself of CO2 effect more difficult because of the introduction of another feedback causing an additional variable.

  Quote

The RATIOS of the attenuations are different, of course, and thus if you are comparing one to the other, you'd see it more prominently in dry areas. But the SIGNAL is similar in both cases.

Correct. But if you want to practically eliminate the effect of water vapor from the observations of temperature rise, the more arid the better. Water vapor and CO2 have different absorption spectra but behave pretty much the same in terms of thermal effect.

  Quote

>That's why AGW theory predicted all along that there would be greatest warming at the poles.

Hmm. I thought it was due to the loss of ice becoming a positive feedback (dark water absorbs more energy) and the normal transport of heat to the poles via the polar cells. That's why the North Pole is warming rapidly (loss of thin floating ice exposes water, heat transport from warmer land near that pole) and the South Pole is barely moving (loss of miles-thick ice takes centuries, and there's not much land near the South Pole.) One of the big arguments right now is which mechanism is more important.

Both poles were predicted to warm. If you remember a few years ago the controversy was that Antarctica was not warming. Then Mann and Others put together a set of computer data to Attempt to show warming. Because the only place on Antarctica that showed warming was the peninsula. Much importance was placed on it because they should have picked up more warming.

But you are not wrong. The presumed positive feedback is indeed a big part of the warming to occur in the Arcti. Water takes a lotore energy to Heat than he atmosphere. Along with its heat capacity and the lag time there is the suspicion that the oceans, and particularly the Arctic, are being fly wheeled.

On the other hand the Arctic Ocean is stratified and actually very stable. The warmest layer of Arctic water lies at a depth of between about 150-1000 meters. The top layer is relatively fresh wTer due to the meltwater. This is double edged. On the one hand, the cooler and relatively fresh water doesn't readily mix with the lower halocline, which would mean greater stability of the Arctic as a whole (the arctic isn't deep, but it isn't shallow, either). On the flip side, it takes less energy to heat a couple hundred meters of fresh water than a whole mixed column thousands of meters deep.

These are the odd things. What'll it do?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,091]

> If one is measuring temperatures and wants as clean of a signal as possible,
>a very dry climate is a place to pick it up.

Exactly. The signal to noise ratio is better. Not because the signal is stronger, but because the noise is weaker. That means a plot of the signal itself will not change, but in areas where there is more noise, the signal may be less accurate.

>The decreased albedo in the North Pole is another mechanism. You are correct.
> This, however, makes the measurement itself of CO2 effect more difficult
>because of the introduction of another feedback causing an additional variable.

Agreed - which is why global temperature change is the primary means of verifying the warming signal. A full-spectrum albedo would be another way (more accurate) to do it, but we don't have the spacecraft to do that right now. Note that we just launched one that will give us sun-side albedo 100% of the time, which is pretty cool. That's only half the equation, but it's a lot better than what we have now.

>Water vapor and CO2 have different absorption spectra but behave pretty
>much the same in terms of thermal effect.

Well, water vapor is stronger overall, and they block different wavelengths, but I agree that they work in a similar manner.

>Both poles were predicted to warm.

Hmm. The predictions I saw were that the Arctic would warm rapidly and the Antarctic would warm much more slowly. From the IPCC Third Assessment Report:

================
The IPCC, in its Special Report on Regional Impacts of Climate Change (RICC), produced an assessment of the impacts of climate change on the Arctic and the Antarctic (Everett and Fitzharris, 1998). In addition, the impact of climate change on the cryosphere is discussed in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) (Fitzharris, 1996). The main points arising from the regional assessment were that the Arctic is extremely vulnerable to projected climate change—major physical, ecological, sociological, and economic impacts are expected. Because of a variety of positive feedback mechanisms, the Arctic is likely to respond rapidly and more severely than any other area on Earth, with consequent effects on sea ice, permafrost, and hydrology. On the other hand, the Antarctic would respond relatively slowly to climate change, with much smaller impacts expected by 2100, except in the Antarctic Peninsula.
================

Sounds like that was a pretty accurate prediction, made back in 1996 and 1998.

>Then Mann and Others put together a set of computer data to Attempt to
>show warming. Because the only place on Antarctica that showed warming
>was the peninsula. Much importance was placed on it because they should
>have picked up more warming.

Not according to the IPCC.

>These are the odd things. What'll it do?

That's the $64,000 question.

[rushmc 23]

a few days back I asked you if any NEW reports supported AWG
Now, while this talks about increasing temps and its effects. It does not list a cause
Regardless
I found a fairly new one
thought I would share

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/10/claim-researchers-find-new-evidence-of-warming/

  Quote

From Queen’s University

A study of three remote lakes in Ecuador led by Queen’s University researchers has revealed the vulnerability of tropical high mountain lakes to global climate change – the first study of its kind to show this. The data explains how the lakes are changing due to the water warming as the result of climate change.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

  billvon

>and it's the difference in temps that causes gradients which drives those crazy
>weather events

Agreed. A system in equilibrium will tend to have less extreme weather. A system that is changing rapidly will tend to have more extreme weather, since not all those changes will proceed at the same rate.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/

"We are in uncharted territory." We haven't had this kind of lack of extreme weather that we know about.

Applying what the rule was that you stated that a system in equilibrium would tend to have less extreme weathe, would you find this to be perhaps evidence of an equilibrium? Between having record low tornado numbers the last couple of years and record low hurricane events on Us mainland, it looks like climate really is changing.

We really have been seeing climate change. The opposite of what we would expect.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

  lawrocket

***>and it's the difference in temps that causes gradients which drives those crazy
>weather events

Agreed. A system in equilibrium will tend to have less extreme weather. A system that is changing rapidly will tend to have more extreme weather, since not all those changes will proceed at the same rate.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/

"We are in uncharted territory." We haven't had this kind of lack of extreme weather that we know about.

Applying what the rule was that you stated that a system in equilibrium would tend to have less extreme weathe, would you find this to be perhaps evidence of an equilibrium? Between having record low tornado numbers the last couple of years and record low hurricane events on Us mainland, it looks like climate really is changing.

We really have been seeing climate change. The opposite of what we would expect.

It so goes against the liberal thinking that just maybe we are changing it for the better.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

The US will get hit by a hurricane. A strong one. I expect one to make landfall this year in Florida since it's been a decade since Florida has been hit by a hurricane.

When it happens it will cause destruction. And plenty will tell us that ithr hurricane was caused by climate change. The storm surge will cause flooding and we'll be told it's because sea level is rising.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 236]

  lawrocket

The US will get hit by a hurricane. A strong one. I expect one to make landfall this year in Florida since it's been a decade since Florida has been hit by a hurricane.

When it happens it will cause destruction. And plenty will tell us that ithr hurricane was caused by climate change. The storm surge will cause flooding and we'll be told it's because sea level is rising.

Repent. The end is near.

[billvon 3,091]

>It so goes against the liberal thinking that just maybe we are changing it for
>the better.

It is good to see the trend in denialism lately towards Type III denialism - "yes we're warming the planet but it's all for the better!" That's a much more supportable position because it does not seek to deny basic climate science, just that there can be some bad effects of warming. And, while not entirely reasonable, that position allows a far more rational conversation about mitigations and risks.

[kallend 2,127]

Some current scientific data attached.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

  kallend

Some current scientific data attached.

Cherry picked data. I'll cherry pick, too.

Total Accumulated Cyclone Energy 2015 in the North Atlantic - zero

Total tornadoes detected/reported in the US in March, 2015 - zero

But let's look at global ACE trends. See attached.

I think this whole extreme weather thing is going badly. Extreme weather is a totally subjective term and ends up being anecdotal. I'm interested in climate.

Too bad most climate alarmists are interested in weather. Come to think of it, the hottest decade ever measure correlates with the lowest arctic ice extent decade ever measured and correlates with the lowest cyclonic and tornado activities ever measured.

Class III alarmism: when lack of tornadoes and hurricanes is proof of just awful climate change is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,127]

  lawrocket

***Some current scientific data attached.

Cherry picked data. I'll cherry pick, too.



The data are what they are. Nothing cherry picked about the satellite measurements. MORE THAN two standard deviations below average ice extent.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

  kallend

******Some current scientific data attached.

Cherry picked data. I'll cherry pick, too.



The data are what they are. Nothing cherry picked about the satellite measurements. MORE THAN two standard deviations below average ice extent.

Have you seen what's up with Lake Erie? Superior?

You cherry picked the data that supported the anthropogenic global warming theory. I cherry picked the stuff that is inconsistent.

You say there's nothing cherry picked about satellite data. I agree. So let's agree to use UAH and RSS for global temperature data. Or would that be cherry picking.

There's so much stuff out there to support AGE theory. There is so much out there that doesn't support it. There is so much that can correlate to bad. There is a lot tk correlate tk good.

But seriously - you cherry picked the Arctic. I'll cherry pick the Great Lakes. You point to Arctic Ice. I point to Antarctic. You point to hot west. I point to cold east.

Between them a better picture is painted. One that has information everywhere. You're pointing to one prediction that is looking like it is working out okay. As any scientist knows, results completing with predictions are interesting. But not as interesting as the ones that came out unexpected.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

  billvon

>It so goes against the liberal thinking that just maybe we are changing it for
>the better.

It is good to see the trend in denialism lately towards Type III denialism - "yes we're warming the planet but it's all for the better!" That's a much more supportable position because it does not seek to deny basic climate science, just that there can be some bad effects of warming. And, while not entirely reasonable, that position allows a far more rational conversation about mitigations and risks.

Silly rabbit. I never say that the climate isn't changing. It is the nature of the climate to change. It is not, and has never, been static.

Typical alarmist, trying to make a termite mound out of a few grains of sand.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

What I dknt understand is how it can be unreasonable to think something might be better but reasonable when others think it may be worse. IN a way, it is inherently unreasonable because it is inherently subjective.

Which is better? A Democrat or a Republican? Only one choice is reasonable, apparently

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

  lawrocket

What I dknt understand is how it can be unreasonable to think something might be better but reasonable when others think it may be worse. IN a way, it is inherently unreasonable because it is inherently subjective.

Which is better? A Democrat or a Republican? Only one choice is reasonable, apparently

I believe it is that the liberals think man is unworthy, except for them, and they must coddle and nurture them like a parent.

Liberals are the mommys and daddys of the world.

Except they are a lot closer to the drunk uncle babysitting.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,091]

>Silly rabbit. I never say that the climate isn't changing. It is the nature of the
>climate to change. It is not, and has never, been static.

Agreed.

There are three kinds of deniers out there.

Type I - "the climate isn't changing!"
Type II - "OK so maybe the climate's changing, but we had nothing to do with it!"
Type III - "OK so the climate's changing, and we had something to do with it, but none of the changes could possibly be bad!"

There are a great many type I and II's on here. (In fact, several seem to go back and forth depending on the day.) Type III's, as I mentioned, are a lot closer to reality.

[turtlespeed 226]

  billvon

>Silly rabbit. I never say that the climate isn't changing. It is the nature of the
>climate to change. It is not, and has never, been static.

Agreed.

There are three kinds of deniers out there.

Type I - "the climate isn't changing!"
Type II - "OK so maybe the climate's changing, but we had nothing to do with it!"
Type III - "OK so the climate's changing, and we had something to do with it, but none of the changes could possibly be bad!"

There are a great many type I and II's on here. (In fact, several seem to go back and forth depending on the day.) Type III's, as I mentioned, are a lot closer to reality.

So are you saying that it is impossible for the benefits to outweigh the bad?

Or is it just so important to you to follow the party line?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,091]

>So are you saying that it is impossible for the benefits to outweigh the bad?

Nope. Not even close.

[kallend 2,127]

  lawrocket

*********Some current scientific data attached.

Cherry picked data. I'll cherry pick, too.



The data are what they are. Nothing cherry picked about the satellite measurements. MORE THAN two standard deviations below average ice extent.

Have you seen what's up with Lake Erie? Superior?

You cherry picked the data that supported the anthropogenic global warming theory. I cherry picked the stuff that is inconsistent.



Nope. To pick cherries you have to wait until after the tree has fruited.

I started posting about Arctic sea ice extent in 2005 (use the search function) and on a somewhat irregular basis have been following up on it ever since. I had no way of knowing in 2005 that the 2014-2015 winter ice extent would be MORE THAN TWO standard deviations below the average.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

  kallend

************Some current scientific data attached.

Cherry picked data. I'll cherry pick, too.



The data are what they are. Nothing cherry picked about the satellite measurements. MORE THAN two standard deviations below average ice extent.

Have you seen what's up with Lake Erie? Superior?

You cherry picked the data that supported the anthropogenic global warming theory. I cherry picked the stuff that is inconsistent.



Nope. To pick cherries you have to wait until after the tree has fruited.

I started posting about Arctic sea ice extent in 2005 (use the search function) and on a somewhat irregular basis have been following up on it ever since. I had no way of knowing in 2005 that the 2014-2015 winter ice extent would be MORE THAN TWO standard deviations below the average.

I've been posting about oscillations for over five years. And it's quite interesting to what this is attributed and the geographic locality of the departure from normal.

But I'll hand it to you. Yes, you have discussed ice for a decade. Arctic ice with some glacial ice thrown in every now and then.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,127]

  lawrocket

***************Some current scientific data attached.

Cherry picked data. I'll cherry pick, too.



The data are what they are. Nothing cherry picked about the satellite measurements. MORE THAN two standard deviations below average ice extent.

Have you seen what's up with Lake Erie? Superior?

You cherry picked the data that supported the anthropogenic global warming theory. I cherry picked the stuff that is inconsistent.



Nope. To pick cherries you have to wait until after the tree has fruited.

I started posting about Arctic sea ice extent in 2005 (use the search function) and on a somewhat irregular basis have been following up on it ever since. I had no way of knowing in 2005 that the 2014-2015 winter ice extent would be MORE THAN TWO standard deviations below the average.

I've been posting about oscillations for over five years. And it's quite interesting to what this is attributed and the geographic locality of the departure from normal.

But I'll hand it to you. Yes, you have discussed ice for a decade. Arctic ice with some glacial ice thrown in every now and then.

But I didn't accuse you of cherry picking.

Here is an article on the Antarctic ice mass balance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

  kallend

******************Some current scientific data attached.

Cherry picked data. I'll cherry pick, too.



The data are what they are. Nothing cherry picked about the satellite measurements. MORE THAN two standard deviations below average ice extent.

Have you seen what's up with Lake Erie? Superior?

You cherry picked the data that supported the anthropogenic global warming theory. I cherry picked the stuff that is inconsistent.



Nope. To pick cherries you have to wait until after the tree has fruited.

I started posting about Arctic sea ice extent in 2005 (use the search function) and on a somewhat irregular basis have been following up on it ever since. I had no way of knowing in 2005 that the 2014-2015 winter ice extent would be MORE THAN TWO standard deviations below the average.

I've been posting about oscillations for over five years. And it's quite interesting to what this is attributed and the geographic locality of the departure from normal.

But I'll hand it to you. Yes, you have discussed ice for a decade. Arctic ice with some glacial ice thrown in every now and then.

But I didn't accuse you of cherry picking.

What's with the cherries? Neither one of you are virginal.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

I took a look a bit at what was going on. The sea ice extent appears to be pretty normal. Except in the Sea of Okhosk. But since this is usually the first ice to melt, I think it is safe to predict that over the next sixty days the sea ice extent will continue to trend upward.

As you know I have also long pointed out that sea ice extent is dominated by wind. See attached image. One can tell exactly what was going on with the dominant wind pattern. Yes, the northerly wind pattern along Eastern Asia pumping warm air northward.

But then another piece of information. PIOMAS puts ice volume near normal. See the second image. This leads to a question: how does volume approach normal while extent is minimal?

I have long agreed that albedo doesn't care how thick ice is. Just how extensive it is. So I get that. But ice volume gives an idea about how much ice is there. Five years ago the suggestion was that the ice we had was young, thin, sick and fragile. Not any more. A lot of ice has formed and it has been compacted. It is older, thicker and more robust. And, yes, is also easily blown south into the Atlantic and Pacific. So wind may easily ruin that, too.

The whole picture isn't presented with ice extent. I agree that it is probably the most important metric. But it's like judging a person's health by looking at weight. Very important stuff, but height provides an additional context.

Note: comparing Antarctic land ice with Arctic sea ice is like comparing my doctorate to yours. They form by different processes. The colder it gets below freezing the more sea ice develops. The colder it gets below freezing the accretion of land ice decreases. This explains why the interior of Antarctica is a desert. Sea ice forms quickly at -40. Land ice doesn't accrete at that temperature because water vapor is practicLly absent from air at no more can precipitate.

But yes. Total extent is a minimum. Expect the ice extent compared to the past to increase in the Arctic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,091]

> The colder it gets below freezing the more sea ice develops.

And the warmer it gets on land, the faster the glaciers move - and the more sea ice develops.