The Evidence for Human Caused Climate Change Part III

[Old Hippy]

Like I said, companies ALWAYS tell the truth to the public in their decisions.

this... you tell us someyhing about your company... a truth??? I go to their website...
you imply they are lying...

so even your own sources are considered liars

Your analysis of the Libs policy indicates otherwise, but if you say so.

simply ...you could actually tell us the Coalition policey and CO2 targets
I think the fact that you will not compare the "official" Coalition Targets with the green policey says it all, even your own companys website has the same targets

you should really read you own company's attitude to saving money by adopting green energy sources
http://www.sca.com/en/about_sca/sca_in_brief/president-and-ceo-jan-johansson/[/URL

Spoiler :

Strategy for sustainable growth

SCA’s business strategy stands firm, with an intense focus on costs, cash flow, capital efficiency, innovation and growth. Restructuring programmes and savings measures implemented throughout the Group have reduced costs. Improved productivity and efficiency in large parts of the Group have led to enhanced capital efficiency. As a rule, more efficient production also yields positive environmental effects. One example of this is the some 1,700 small-scale energy improvements carried out in the Group in recent years resulting in a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and annual savings of approximately SEK 700m.

That's okay, it's members money (ie: yours) that senior union officials are propping up the sex industry with.

Not my Unions money, definately not mine either, their own maybe i will agree, you should be in broome after one of my fellow Unionists has just finnished a fly in fly out 3 week shift

 

[Core Imposter]

The other day I read an article about the evidence for Dino fart caused climate change and it was just about as ripe as some of the thinking here.

 

[Dale]

this... you tell us someyhing about your company... a truth??? I go to their website...
you imply they are lying...

so even your own sources are considered liars

Catch22 isn't it. You rely on public information the company posts (and everyone knows companies never tell the full truth publicly) and I comment from internal knowledge which if I posted directly gets me fired. Hmmm..... what to do, what to do. Ah I know, ignore you and keep my job.

simply ...you could actually tell us the Coalition policey and CO2 targets
I think the fact that you will not compare the "official" Coalition Targets with the green policey says it all, even your own companys website has the same targets

Direct Action target is to reduce emissions by 5% of 1990 levels by 2020. You would know that if you actually did some real research and not rely on the Australian Bulldust Corporation or The Green Age.

Not my Unions money, definately not mine either, their own maybe i will agree, you should be in broome after one of my fellow Unionists has just finnished a fly in fly out 3 week shift

Pffft move to the sticks and get my hands dirty? You forget, I'm an elitist, racist, right-wing, dirty oil, big business lunatic.
Though I'd happily move to the Gold Coast!

 

[Old Hippy]

Direct Action target is to reduce emissions by 5% of 1990 levels by 2020. You would know that if you actually did some real research and not rely on the Australian Bulldust Corporation or The Green Age.

thank you ... i stand corrected
always found it confussing with their stance of 20% reduction by 2000 and climate change is crap approach, but thanks ... i've changed my favorite links to the newer one for the liberal party
http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy%20Web.ashx

no matter how much I disagree with them ... they still get some things right, got to give them that

Direct Action on Renewable Energy and a New Solar Sunrise for Australia

A Coalition Government will introduce a range of initiatives to boost renewable energy use in Australian homes and communities, including investing $100 million each year for an additional one million solar energy homes by 2020.
To accelerate the roll-out and uptake of renewable energy right across Australia, 125 mid-scale solar
projects will be established in schools and communities and 25 geothermal or tidal ,
'micro'projects will be established in suitable towns.
To support the development of larger scale renewable energy generation,

 

[Dale]

thank you ... i stand corrected
always found it confussing with their stance of 20% reduction by 2000 and climate change is crap approach, but thanks ... i've changed my favorite links to the newer one for the liberal party
http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy%20Web.ashx

no matter how much I disagree with them ... they still get some things right, got to give them that

Really, both sides have some parts right and some parts VERY WRONG. The bit you quoted is right, and so is the CEF's $10 Bn research fund (if allocated well, which Labor has a bad history of doing). But the spirit of what the $10 Bn is for is good.

On the bad side though is DA's making emissions targets on companies voluntary, and the CEF's ridiculous carbon price when the rest of the world will be 1/4 of the price. Voluntary targets just won't be met and a tax that puts an extra 12% blanket strain on the national economy when it's on the verge of collapsing is just insane.

So there's good and bad in both. I just prefer DA as I think there's more good bits in it than CEF. And just to reiterate, I fully support a move to sustainable energy. Just don't economically kill the country whilst doing it.

Note: If CEF was fixed so that I supported it, I still wouldn't vote for ALP. They are a destructive economic force who make people complacent and rely on Govt handouts too much. I find it funny that Obama's new campaign of showing a woman living off the US Govt welfare system (instead of actually going out and creating her own life support network) through her entire life is called....... Julia!

 

[Bootstoots]

I was reading a different thread about climate change and posted a number of statements. I'd like paste them here with a couple of additions to see what the people on this thread, especially climate change skeptics, have to say about these points. I think they could help guide discussion, at the least. So here goes:

1. Humans are pumping CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere at a rapid rate due to fossil fuel consumption and agricultural activities (for CH4). The evidence here is incontrovertible. The CO2 concentration in particular has risen from ~280 ppm to 390 ppm, and is gaining 2-3 ppm per year.

2. Higher CO2 levels will cause ocean acidification as a result of basic chemistry. Coral reef ecosystems will suffer serious losses as a result of this sudden change, as will a number of other marine environments.

3. CO2 and CH4 are potent warming gases. CO2 lasts longer, CH4 is more potent. Both absorb infrared light and warm the environment around them. It is therefore plausible that marked increases in either gas could cause increases in the Earth's average temperature.

4. An increase has been observed in Earth's average surface temperature, with corresponding melting of glaciers in the locations that were most vulnerable to glacial melt (but increases in a few areas, including extremely high elevations of the Karakoram range in northern Pakistan and continental East Antarctica, possibly due to elevated precipitation rates).

5. Because the climate is an extremely complex system, models of it have improved but are still not entirely convincing. Although I personally am likely to be skeptical of any given model, the current pattern of human behavior carries a very high risk of warming given the previous two points.

6 (not in other thread). It is therefore worthwhile to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions where this is possible without causing marked economic consequences. E.g. renewable energy, improved efficiency, etc.

7 (ditto). Fossil fuels are likely to see increased extraction costs due to resource limitations. Thus it's a good idea, from a purely economic perspective, to encourage decreased dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[Dale]

I was reading a different thread about climate change and posted a number of statements. I'd like paste them here with a couple of additions to see what the people on this thread, especially climate change skeptics, have to say about these points. I think they could help guide discussion, at the least. So here goes:

1. Humans are pumping CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere at a rapid rate due to fossil fuel consumption and agricultural activities (for CH4). The evidence here is incontrovertible. The CO2 concentration in particular has risen from ~280 ppm to 390 ppm, and is gaining 2-3 ppm per year.

CO2 increase has been linear, not accelerating. Also, less than 1% increase per year is not a "rapid rate". But you're essentially correct, that CO2/CH4 atmospheric content is increasing.

2. Higher CO2 levels will cause ocean acidification as a result of basic chemistry. Coral reef ecosystems will suffer serious losses as a result of this sudden change, as will a number of other marine environments.

Recent studies show more and more evidence that gradual acidification as we are experiencing can be adapted to by marine life. Earlier studies where marine life was taken from current water conditions into water simulating and atmosphere of 500 ppmv CO2 immediately misrepresent reality.

3. CO2 and CH4 are potent warming gases. CO2 lasts longer, CH4 is more potent. Both absorb infrared light and warm the environment around them. It is therefore plausible that marked increases in either gas could cause increases in the Earth's average temperature.

CO2 and CH4 are actually the LEAST potent warming gases. Their 20-year GWP is 1 and 72 respectively, compared to the most GHG's which are all rated between 5000 and 16,300 GWP.

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

4. An increase has been observed in Earth's average surface temperature, with corresponding melting of glaciers in the locations that were most vulnerable to glacial melt (but increases in a few areas, including extremely high elevations of the Karakoram range in northern Pakistan and continental East Antarctica, possibly due to elevated precipitation rates).

Correct. These are all symptoms of a warmer planet (no matter what caused the warming).

5. Because the climate is an extremely complex system, models of it have improved but are still not entirely convincing. Although I personally am likely to be skeptical of any given model, the current pattern of human behavior carries a very high risk of warming given the previous two points.

For nearly all sceptics, it's not a question of IF the planet will warm due to human activity, but by HOW MUCH. I am not convinced of the IPCC's vagueness surrounding water vapor and don't believe it to be a high positive feedback (based on climate models). Observations show that climate models treat water vapor incorrectly and that feedback may in fact by NULL --> low.

6 (not in other thread). It is therefore worthwhile to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions where this is possible without causing marked economic consequences. E.g. renewable energy, improved efficiency, etc.

7 (ditto). Fossil fuels are likely to see increased extraction costs due to resource limitations. Thus it's a good idea, from a purely economic perspective, to encourage decreased dependence on fossil fuels.

I support sustainable energy sources. Fossil fuels are not sustainable (unless we find a way to speed up the millions of years natural process of forming them). However, I do NOT support the current panic surrounding the push to move to sustainable energy. In fact, nearly all of what greenies call "sustainable energy" is NOT truly sustainable since it does not meet the criteria to be called that. To be sustainable energy means it must be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. All current forms fail at least at the economic sustainability with massive subsidies required to make it even competitive with the most expensive fossil fuels.

 

[Crezth]

Ignore Dale, he legitimately has no idea what he's talking about.

He'll probably make some snarky reply to this, but seriously. He's not a climate scientist or anything, so his "analysis" and "discussion" aren't worth the internet they're printed on.

 

[Bootstoots]

CO2 increase has been linear, not accelerating. Also, less than 1% increase per year is not a "rapid rate". But you're essentially correct, that CO2/CH4 atmospheric content is increasing.

Actually, let's call it linear - I'm not sure it's accelerating either. It looks like it may be based on the Mauna Loa data and other datasets, but I don't know that I can prove it is using statistics nor do I want to bother with the data. So let's call it linear.

But I do dispute your other statement - that 0.6% (or so) per year isn't a "rapid rate". Using the data we have, this is definitely an extremely rapid climate change on par with, or faster than, the CO2 increase rates observed in the most rapid changes we have good data for (e.g. Younger Dryas). Furthermore, an increase of 0.6% per year over 100 years gives us an increase of 82% over that timespan, or 391 ppm to 711 ppm. 82% over 100 years is very fast, and I'm afraid it may end up being inconvenient for us.

Recent studies show more and more evidence that gradual acidification as we are experiencing can be adapted to by marine life. Earlier studies where marine life was taken from current water conditions into water simulating and atmosphere of 500 ppmv CO2 immediately misrepresent reality.

Coral reef ecosystems would be especially affected - in studies I've seen, marked negative effects were seen in over >90% of coral reefs observed with pH reduction consistent with ~600 ppmv CO2.

CO2 and CH4 are actually the LEAST potent warming gases. Their 20-year GWP is 1 and 72 respectively, compared to the most GHG's which are all rated between 5000 and 16,300 GWP.

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

Your argument here has a significant flaw if you want to apply it to AGW: you need to adjust for the amount of any specific greenhouse gas that is actually produced by humans. It doesn't matter as much that SH6, for example, has 32600 times the potency of CO2, because we're producing more than 32600 times as much CO2 as we are SF6. Likewise with all the other extreme GHG's on that page - we're also not producing anywhere near the 11200 times the CO2 that we're producing CF4, etc.

Obviously if were producing even 0.1% of the SF6 as we are CO2, we'd be in much bigger trouble than we are now. But that isn't the case - CO2, CH4, and things like H2O that are pegged to them (as temperatures increase, water vapor increases due to increasing evaporation rate) are responsible for most of the positive anthropogenic forcings on temperature.

Correct. These are all symptoms of a warmer planet (no matter what caused the warming).

Agreed on this point.

For nearly all sceptics, it's not a question of IF the planet will warm due to human activity, but by HOW MUCH. I am not convinced of the IPCC's vagueness surrounding water vapor and don't believe it to be a high positive feedback (based on climate models). Observations show that climate models treat water vapor incorrectly and that feedback may in fact by NULL --> low.

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't know exactly what water vapor will do either; most models have it as a potent greenhouse gas, but nobody really knows what clouds do to that prediction. I'd be a lot more worried about CH4 release from Arctic regions in terms of net climate effect.

You do realize that the issue of how much H2O affects the climate is a matter of amount of climate change, I assume. So whether the global average temp would rise by 3 C (my best guess) or 6 C (not even close to my best guess) by 2100 at present fossil fuel consumption rates, it would be to our advantage to reduce carbon output and try to prevent some of that increase.

I support sustainable energy sources. Fossil fuels are not sustainable (unless we find a way to speed up the millions of years natural process of forming them). However, I do NOT support the current panic surrounding the push to move to sustainable energy. In fact, nearly all of what greenies call "sustainable energy" is NOT truly sustainable since it does not meet the criteria to be called that. To be sustainable energy means it must be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. All current forms fail at least at the economic sustainability with massive subsidies required to make it even competitive with the most expensive fossil fuels.

I'm hoping there's some change here - I've seen encouraging data involving both the consumption side (far higher efficiency is possible) and the supply side (costs of solar panels, wind turbines, etc are falling; more importantly, battery technology might actually reach the point where it can deal with the variability in energy output from renewables). Also biofuels are growing now that they've realized that corn-based ethanol is ********.

The subsidies provided by various governments are (supposed) to encourage the growth of renewable energy so that renewable energy becomes economically viable (due to technology advances, economies of scale, etc) faster than it would otherwise. And I think this is a good idea given the evidence for AGW.

 

[Bootstoots]

Ignore Dale, he legitimately has no idea what he's talking about.

He'll probably make some snarky reply to this, but seriously. He's not a climate scientist or anything, so his "analysis" and "discussion" aren't worth the internet they're printed on.

It doesn't matter to me if he's a climate scientist - and I almost became one*. It doesn't take any academic credentials to have opinions worth sharing. I actually think he's pretty well-informed, and I'm trying to figure out what his exact position is.

*further explanation: I was in an applied physics grad program where I had a lot of contact with climatologists, but decided I'd rather switch programs and study biology instead. I'm fascinated by complex systems like the climate and the eukaryotic cell, but my decision ended up being to study the latter one. So I do biology now, but I still lurk in climate threads.

 

[Crezth]

It doesn't matter to me if he's a climate scientist - and I almost became one*. It doesn't take any academic credentials to have opinions worth sharing. I actually think he's pretty well-informed, and I'm trying to figure out what his exact position is.

I guess not, but they aren't anything I would admit as a point based in knowledge rather than gut-feeling and intuition.

 

[Bootstoots]

I guess not, but they aren't anything I would admit as a point based in knowledge rather than gut-feeling and intuition.

It is perfectly possible to be knowledgeable about a field without being formally trained in it. You can get enough resources in textbooks and online (a surprising number of papers are freely available nowadays) to develop a reasonably good understanding of a field like climatology. It just takes being interested enough to spend a few months reading and understanding the literature about the basics, and anyone with some knowledge of science could develop a decently well-informed opinion of climate change.

Don't overvalue credentials - fundamentally they're only a piece of paper. It's the arguments that matter. From what I've seen, Dale's specific opinions are often pretty well-founded, though I can't figure out what his bigger-picture beliefs on the issue are.

They seem to be something like (and correct me wherever I'm wrong, Dale): AGW is probably real, it's to our advantage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but most of the specific models are unconvincing, and it's not clear that it is to our advantage to institute a carbon tax or institute big rewards for renewables, etc. I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's crazy either.

 

[Dale]

Ignore Dale, he legitimately has no idea what he's talking about.

He'll probably make some snarky reply to this, but seriously. He's not a climate scientist or anything, so his "analysis" and "discussion" aren't worth the internet they're printed on.

Okay let's be totally serious for a post or two and put aside all the "snarky replys" then. I hope you can do that?

No, I'm no climate scientist, but there is so much information out there that anyone can be informed. I mean seriously, isn't that exactly what SkS promotes itself as doing? Informing the general public?

So with lots of reading and looking up papers and observations and cruising the NASA, NOAA and many other climate related websites I have concluded:
- Human's do affect the environment (not just climate).
- Our emissions do have an affect.
- The climate models are not totally accurate, correct with some parameters based on assumptions.
- Vapor feedback as modeled in general climate models is incorrect.
- Due to this incorrect assumption, vapor feedback is a lot less than models say.
- Due to this lower feedback, humans have more time to move away from fossil fuels THE RIGHT WAY.
- Policy dictates the climate science arena now, not science.

Please feel free to engage me in a frank and open discussion about any of the above points. I hope you do, as maybe from you putting aside your prejudice and assumptions against me aside, we both may be able to teach and learn.

It is perfectly possible to be knowledgeable about a field without being formally trained in it. You can get enough resources in textbooks and online (a surprising number of papers are freely available nowadays) to develop a reasonably good understanding of a field like climatology. It just takes being interested enough to spend a few months reading and understanding the literature about the basics, and anyone with some knowledge of science could develop a decently well-informed opinion of climate change.

Don't overvalue credentials - fundamentally they're only a piece of paper. It's the arguments that matter. From what I've seen, Dale's specific opinions are often pretty well-founded, though I can't figure out what his bigger-picture beliefs on the issue are.

They seem to be something like (and correct me wherever I'm wrong, Dale): AGW is probably real, it's to our advantage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but most of the specific models are unconvincing, and it's not clear that it is to our advantage to institute a carbon tax or institute big rewards for renewables, etc. I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's crazy either.

My position is simple:
Humans do affect the environment, and we do need to move away from fossil fuels (for various reasons, not just for climate reasons). However I do not agree completely with the science being pushed by the IPCC to argue immediate change. What do I disagree on? Water vapor feedback.

It's simple really, climate models predict high water vapor feedback. For this to be possible, relative humidity across the entire atmosphere must remain constant (specific humidity rises of course). If relative humidity is constant (of increasing), the uptake of water into the atmosphere is exponential. If relative humidity is decreasing, the uptake of water into the atmosphere is logarithmic. Simple maths and physics.

Satellites and balloon measurements show relative humidity has decreased since 1950. This means water vapor feedback is low, the models are incorrect (as they rely on constant relative humidity to show high feedback), which means climate sensitivity is low, which means we have a LOT more time to move off fossil fuels THE RIGHT WAY.

Sources:
IPCC AR4 working group 1 specifying climate models have constant relative humidity to show high feedback.
Dessler (one of the warmist's favorite scientists) actually admitting that models are wrong due to falling relative humidity.
Measured relative humidity since 1950 at different heights.
Another view of the same data.
And another.

Suffice to say, a claim of ~3C per doubling of CO2 is just ridiculous since the high water feedback relied on to come to that figure, simply does not exist in reality.

 

[Crezth]

It is perfectly possible to be knowledgeable about a field without being formally trained in it. You can get enough resources in textbooks and online (a surprising number of papers are freely available nowadays) to develop a reasonably good understanding of a field like climatology. It just takes being interested enough to spend a few months reading and understanding the literature about the basics, and anyone with some knowledge of science could develop a decently well-informed opinion of climate change.

I suppose it's possible, but there's nothing stopping such people from seizing the day and publishing their findings publically. If there's anything of merit there, then it'll get some attention from the scientific community - which I should hasten to point out has no real interest in keeping good science down.

AFAIK Dale does not have the training required to be able to look at this stuff critically and arrive at a successful or relevant conclusion. If he's actually a climate scientist who has received a degree, published peer-reviewed papers, attended conferences and in general done the years (not months) of work required to be able to develop an educated, independent opinion on global warming, then so be it; egg on my face, I'm wrong, whatever.

Don't overvalue credentials - fundamentally they're only a piece of paper. It's the arguments that matter. From what I've seen, Dale's specific opinions are often pretty well-founded, though I can't figure out what his bigger-picture beliefs on the issue are.

Well, I mean, who are you and I to judge? I don't mean to offend, but Aristotle's specific opinions were considered "pretty well-founded" in his day, even though nowadays many of us would agree that they're bunk. My point is that the "strength" of his arguments are not something that we're qualified to judge from the point of view that it's not something we can follow from egg to chicken. To use the Aristotle example again, he would talk about how things were made from four basic elements and that burning a log was an example of reducing an item into those four elements. If you follow his logic and judge his arguments qualitatively using gut feeling as a substitute for any critical analysis, you might have no problem accepting his conclusion. But without a knowledge of exo/endothermic reactions and thermodynamics in general, you might not be able to explain why he was wrong. Does that make sense?

They seem to be something like (and correct me wherever I'm wrong, Dale): AGW is probably real, it's to our advantage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but most of the specific models are unconvincing, and it's not clear that it is to our advantage to institute a carbon tax or institute big rewards for renewables, etc. I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's crazy either.

I can't really speak for him, but such a moderate position doesn't seem likely from one who describes *ahem* the "Left" as such.

Okay let's be totally serious for a post or two and put aside all the "snarky replys" then. I hope you can do that?

No, I'm no climate scientist, but there is so much information out there that anyone can be informed. I mean seriously, isn't that exactly what SkS promotes itself as doing? Informing the general public?

So with lots of reading and looking up papers and observations and cruising the NASA, NOAA and many other climate related websites I have concluded:
- Human's do affect the environment (not just climate).
- Our emissions do have an affect.
- The climate models are not totally accurate, correct with some parameters based on assumptions.
- Vapor feedback as modeled in general climate models is incorrect.
- Due to this incorrect assumption, vapor feedback is a lot less than models say.
- Due to this lower feedback, humans have more time to move away from fossil fuels THE RIGHT WAY.
- Policy dictates the climate science arena now, not science.

Please feel free to engage me in a frank and open discussion about any of the above points. I hope you do, as maybe from you putting aside your prejudice and assumptions against me aside, we both may be able to teach and learn.

I'm all for teaching and learning, but to get to the crux of the issue: I don't know anything about climate change. The closest I come to this stuff in my line of work is in aerodynamics which, while certainly relevant, is usually on a different scale than "global climate."

That's why I consider this thread to be a farce. There's no legitimately critical debate to foster because everyone who isn't a climate scientist (in all probability, everyone here) is just stabbing in the dark.

 

[Dale]

one who describes *ahem* the "Left" as such.

How do I describe the "Left"? I'm curious to know what impression you have of me.

I'm all for teaching and learning, but to get to the crux of the issue: I don't know anything about climate change. The closest I come to this stuff in my line of work is in aerodynamics which, while certainly relevant, is usually on a different scale than "global climate."

That's why I consider this thread to be a farce. There's no legitimately critical debate to foster because everyone who isn't a climate scientist (in all probability, everyone here) is just stabbing in the dark.

I'm a computer programmer with a strong background in physics and maths. As a programmer I have worked on complex designs and systems. I suppose you could relate that climate modelling. I've played with some of the more popular IPCC climate models and seen the assumptions (and bad coding too) in them. The relative humidity issue is the one that stuck out most to me. And I was actually quite surprised to find that even though satellites and balloons showed the error in the models in relation to relative humidity in the early 2000's (including studies, one of which I linked above), that even to this day climate models STILL persist in using a constant relative humidity. That was when I started to question the science as presented by the IPCC and the consequent policies being pushed as the "solution".

If my position makes me a "denier", so be it. I'd rather be an individual "denier" than an unquestioning "sheep".

 

[Crezth]

How do I describe the "Left"? I'm curious to know what impression you have of me.

Simply the fact that you refer to the "Left" as if it was a political body with a coherent agenda (to say nothing of what I perceive to be your hostility towards it) gives me a distinctly partisan impression of you.

I'm a computer programmer with a strong background in physics and maths. As a programmer I have worked on complex designs and systems. I suppose you could relate that climate modelling. I've played with some of the more popular IPCC climate models and seen the assumptions (and bad coding too) in them. The relative humidity issue is the one that stuck out most to me. And I was actually quite surprised to find that even though satellites and balloons showed the error in the models in relation to relative humidity in the early 2000's (including studies, one of which I linked above), that even to this day climate models STILL persist in using a constant relative humidity. That was when I started to question the science as presented by the IPCC and the consequent policies being pushed as the "solution".

If my position makes me a "denier", so be it. I'd rather be an individual "denier" than an unquestioning "sheep".

I don't know, I think I've used the term "denier" sparingly. Either way, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there are factors and elements you could easily be missing short a substantial background in climatology proper.

Your opinions on the models have been noted, however, again, if you have any concrete case to make surely a peer-reviewed journal is a better place to make it than an internet forum? It's certainly a more useful/relevant place to make it by far.

 

[Dale]

Simply the fact that you refer to the "Left" as if it was a political body with a coherent agenda (to say nothing of what I perceive to be your hostility towards it) gives me a distinctly partisan impression of you.

Global Greens at their recent global convention declared they'd push in their respective Parliaments the concepts of wealth distribution (instead of wealth creation), One World Government (instead of sovereignty), a single global market (instead of free trade), the global spread of Democratic Socialism and the end of fossil fuels. It's hard not to assume there's some agenda there when the Left declare things like that.

I don't know, I think I've used the term "denier" sparingly. Either way, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there are factors and elements you could easily be missing short a substantial background in climatology proper.

Your opinions on the models have been noted, however, again, if you have any concrete case to make surely a peer-reviewed journal is a better place to make it than an internet forum? It's certainly a more useful/relevant place to make it by far.

Hey, I could be wrong (and have been wrong on things and changed my views). However at this point in time, with the evidence available, I have a particular view on climate.

As for publishing, my views have been published by others many times. Even by warmist scientists. But for whatever reason the IPCC ignores those papers and allows the incorrect modelling of relative humidity.

 

[Bootstoots]

Here is a pretty good treasure trove of papers on the topic of feedback from water vapor. I haven't had the time to look through them thoroughly, but it seems the consensus is that water vapor feedback is quite positive, high enough to be within the assumptions of the models. I don't know to what extent they rely on assumptions like constant relative humidity.

It's simple really, climate models predict high water vapor feedback. For this to be possible, relative humidity across the entire atmosphere must remain constant (specific humidity rises of course). If relative humidity is constant (of increasing), the uptake of water into the atmosphere is exponential. If relative humidity is decreasing, the uptake of water into the atmosphere is logarithmic. Simple maths and physics.

What if the uptake of water follows some other function that isn't either exponential or logarithmic? For instance, if it's linear, wouldn't relative humidity still fall with increasing temperature? I might just be missing something, but I don't see why exponential and logarithmic functions are the only possibilities for water uptake as a function of temperature. So I don't get why, if relative humidity actually falls very slowly rather than staying constant, feedback must be vastly lower than predicted.

If you could explain the math and physics behind why you think this, that would be great. I have a physics background too, as do a number of other people posting here (e.g. Crezth). But I don't know enough about this specific issue yet.

Finally, do you know of any papers that use a model of relative humidity that you consider to be more reasonable? If so, what did they find?

 

[Crezth]

Global Greens at their recent global convention declared they'd push in their respective Parliaments the concepts of wealth distribution (instead of wealth creation), One World Government (instead of sovereignty), a single global market (instead of free trade), the global spread of Democratic Socialism and the end of fossil fuels. It's hard not to assume there's some agenda there when the Left declare things like that.

See, now, when you say sensationalist crap like this, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

Hey, I could be wrong (and have been wrong on things and changed my views). However at this point in time, with the evidence available, I have a particular view on climate.

As for publishing, my views have been published by others many times. Even by warmist scientists. But for whatever reason the IPCC ignores those papers and allows the incorrect modelling of relative humidity.

Maybe that reason/those reasons is/are worth investigating?

If you could explain the math and physics behind why you think this, that would be great. I have a physics background too, as do a number of other people posting here (e.g. Crezth). But I don't know enough about this specific issue yet.

Kind of the big problem here in my mind (not you, specifically, but that we're discussing this issue without the benefit of all the context, which someone who does this for a living is more likely to havE).

 

[Bootstoots]

I certainly agree that it would be awesome if a real climatologist would show up in this thread. Unfortunately true experts are pretty rare on random Internet forums.