More than once I've seen AGW believers claim CO2-induced warming increases the concentration water vapor, which of course is also a greenhouse gas; and while that's OK as far as it goes, when I invite them to think beyond proximate effects, they seem to become deer in the headlights. So I guess I need to spell it out: all else being equal, more WV seems to mean more clouds, which attenuate insolation during the day and attenuate heat loss at night. Now if the former effect is greater than the latter, how does it make any sense to talk about positive feedbacks at all, since they'd all be cancelled out by the negative feedback from clouds?
Your belief in existence of greenhouse gases has no connection to the observed realty: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ng-dangerously.524900/page-32#post-1068708364 It is all in your mind. Look around, man, real things are so good and so interesting, no need of pipe dreaming reality.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/ Keep in mind that warmer means that more water vapor is required before clouds ever form. So, the effects in my other link are the dominant factor.
I will just state again, the obvious. Is there were any real danger from what the billions paid to climatologists to confirm what the IPCC said, prior to billions being spent in grants, we would have began worldwide land management to add an exponential increase in flora, while ending the rain forest deforestation taking place at historic levels even if it required the military to enforce it, for the sake of humanity itself. Since none of this has been done, or even planned, and only carbon taxes are given as the primary way to address this, clearly the gov;t is not at all serious about this issue. Only about carbon taxes. A redistribution of income that the govt gets to dip its pelican sized beak in, just like the mafia has done for years on the flow of other people's money. So how can you give any creds when the common sense manner will not be used, to at least to try to reduce co2 which can be done naturally? Well, there must not be enough money to be made by adding flora? Something has stopped it. But until govt shows me it takes this deal seriously, as seriously as some have taken carbon taxes, which has its own schemes of making money for the few, I will continue to think the science is not close enough to be able to make predictions. And if they do not understand it well enough to model it, and make accurate predictions then clearly their knowledge is too limited to make the long term predictions they have to pull out of their sedentary arses. Prove the science, get rid of the skeptics. Getting rid of the debunkers is harder for they are emotionally or ideologically vested in their beliefs.
I think you need to go back and review what government IS and how it works. Somehow, you think your representatives know something about science and act on THAT while ignoring what YOU say!!! That is SO WRONG! Those in CHARGE of science in congress don't even know what science IS!! unfortunately.
We have not seen this call from europe either, not just the US. No one has seen the need to add billions and billions of new flora which will remove co2. If a space rock was gonna hit the earth in 10 years, would they ignore that as well? I doubt it. If europe believes in deadly climate change and went after trump because he did not buy into it, as they did, what is keeping them from doing their part in land management, and calling for the end to rain forest deforestation since those forests play a role in co2 levels? Yet we have heard only crickets. So they say it is very important but make no move to address it, except for carbon taxes, this speaks loudly to some of us. The danger is apparently not being taken seriously even by those who claim the science is settled. lol Understand though, I think the climate is changing, for that is natural, and I also think man has added to the co2 levels. I just do not know, and no one else seems to know either, just how much is due to man and how much is due to natural causes. A naturally warming earth in its climate cycle would also add co2 with or without man being here. And I cannot forget what the physicist freeman dyson said. He said there could be more positives from a warmer climate than negatives and we will not know for sure until the warming gets greater. And there could be a net positive when all is said and done, and yet the predictions do not consider that. Only the negative is talked about. Never a positive. Only gloom and doom. Well, gloom and doom sells better as many people love such a story.
If you want to discuss some response to the increase in earth's temperature, I'm fine with that. Not all congressmen disregard science. You're just not listening. There is a decided lack of bravery, of course, as the forces of anti-science are serious. Suggesting THAT is a measure of science is absolutely preposterous. THAT is a measure of the population of the US, the representation we choose, and how democracy works. Gloom and doom sells? You just got through arguing that nothing is selling! Which is it. I don't really care what Freeman Dyson says. He's a smart guy, but his comments have been superficial and sweeping. He stated that China has a choice of getting rich or staying poor with getting rich being dependant on huge investment in coal - sorry, China is doing better that that. Dyson was just wrong. It's not the only choice - in fact it's not the choice China made. The problem with warming is that it will upset agriculture and water distribution. Having Canada and the steppes of Russia being more arable does NOT fix that. Our military sees this as a serious national security issue. Sorry if that's so gloomy for you. Sometimes serious problems aren't all cheery!
Nothing you quoted addresses my argument, which has nothing to do with high level versus low level clouds, or with "brighter" clouds, whatever the hell they are. Sure it does, until that moisture laden warm air cools down, which always happens within 24 hours... ...so your admiration for your conclusion notwithstanding, you've offered no visible means of support for it.
It does. It is. Not necessarily. While there is more water vapor in terms of mixing ratio that does not, by itself, mean relative humidity will increase nor that the cloud formation processes like condensation, supersaturation, lift, etc. will increase. Remember, temperature went up too and cloud formation is highly dependent on the temperature as well. It's important to understand the difference between a feedback and a forcing mechanisms. WV is not a forcing mechanism. But, it does have a limited feedback relationship with the temperature. As temperatures increase/decrease WV will increase/decrease as well, but the feedback has a decay component that causes WV to stay in stable equilibrium with the temperature. This is actually intuitive if not obvious. Think about it. If WV was not in a stable equilibrium with the temperature then something as trivial as a hyperactive hurricane could cause a runaway greenhouse effect. But alas after billions of years that never happened. WV cannot, by itself, cause or initiate longterm changes in the temperature. However, CO2 can. That's what makes a forcing mechanism for both temperature and WV. More CO2 means higher temperatures which means higher WV mixing ratios which reinforces the CO2 induced temperature increase. It is very important that you understand that while WV can (and does) amplify the temperature increase it does not force or initiate further temperature increases above and beyond it's amplification effect. There is a difference between being the initiating for a change and being a participant of that change. You must understand this principal. If you don't then you will be very confused when trying to understand how CO2 and WV are related and how they impact the global mean temperature.
Climate feedbacks are pretty normal in the biosphere over geologic time scales, and there's a few different types of them. For example, the more ice the sunlight is reflected from the earth's surface and the cooler the temperatures become, causing more ice to form. On the other hand, heating melts ice, and can also encourage solid methane deposits in the Arctic tundra to be released (the methane is a clathrate trapped in ice). More info here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis Solid methane can also exist in clay layers beneath the ocean floor since, unlike regular ice, the solid methane-water complex stays solid up to 57 degrees F under the immense pressures at the ocean floor (80 atmospheres). Over 90% of the ocean floor is below 42 degrees F.
Really? You think if WV concentration decreased by 50%, cloud volume would remain unchanged? Sure, until it comes down within 24 hours. A brilliant rebuttal, no doubt - to an argument I never made.
That would be a huge drop. Anyway, let's do some hypothetical calculations. At 0C and 500mb of pressure (a reasonable representation of a cloud bearing layer) the saturation mixing ratio is 7.70 kg/m^3. At -9C and 500mb of pressure the saturation mixing ratio is 3.85 kg/m^3. So relative humidity remains constant if you drop the temperature by 9C and WV by 50%. All other things being equal both scenarios would be expected to have the same cloud frequency and density. It's highly unlikely that all other things will remain equal though. Clouds can either put a downward or upward pressure on global mean temperatures depending on the changes in timing, altitude, and density of their formation. It's still an active topic of research and debate in the academic community whether the net effect will have a positive or negative effect on temperatures, but the there is heavy leaning towards it being a positive feedback when averaged over the entire globe. I'm talking about the slow steady secular upward trend in the global mean temperature average over long periods of time. I'm not talking about diurnal temperature swings. By the way, AGW posits that the diurnal temperature range will decrease generally speaking. Much of this decrease is the result of daily minimums increasing faster than daily maximums. Observations support that prediction.
So, that scenario is only one of many that are "possible" or that "might" impact our national security. The suggest that AGW inherently is a serious threat is unsubstantiated, and unwarranted. The folks in the pentagon that developed that thought experiment were directed to do so. As in, "if this, then this, then maybe this,.....to infinity," the perhaps there becomes a conversation about population shits that would impact the US. I would ask two things though, the folks who support AGW also don't support border enforcement, so why, if mass migration becomes an isolated "threat", do they believe in it? The threat was articulated as a supply of resources issue, and one that might induce military border protection. Why? If AGW huggers are so willing to accept any and all, isn't this a non issue for them? Second, what inherently are we saying then? Liberals I know usually live behind high walls and fences and use government as their enforcement arm to ensure that no one gets them in their collective sleep. So, are we finally recognizing that our liberal "inclusive" left are just fake? Seems as much. The real problem is that the science to date doesn't actually integrate the outcomes their predictions actually predict. It it warms, there are more clouds. The clouds interfere with additional warming. Our models aren't designed to cope with this unfortunate little naturally occurring process.
That's not necessarily true. In fact, if the temperature goes up and all other factors remain equal there will be less clouds; not more. The rub is that WV mixing ratios will likely go up as well which has, so far, been confirmed by observation. That's not necessarily true either. For example, if cloud densities at night increase faster than during the day then that would reinforce warming; not interfere with it. And of course this assumes that clouds densities will increase which isn't a given either. Changes in formation at different levels of the atmosphere has an impact as well. In fact, there are many things that need to be considered. Again, not true. Cloud microphysics are absolutely included in general circulation models. It's not a question of the models being designed to cope with clouds. It's a question of how accurately the simulations match observation. It's a mixed bag of results right now. The models handle cloud formation pretty well in some areas and not so well in others. But, it's universally accepted that cloud modeling, as it stands today, is better than having nothing at all. In other words, our models are producing useful results that are grounded in reality while at the same time they aren't perfect and do need some work. Google for "cloud microphysics parameterization schemes" for more information.
This is equivocation. There is no expectation that all other factors would remain constant is there? Which doesn't address the use case that they form during the day, does it? Perhaps you could quantify this formation process absent the sun's energy? I can wait... They are? You mentioned microphysics, but didn't include the macrophysics of the observation. Several physics studies out there today that clearly indicate this relationship, and the absence of that dynamic from the current model groups. Interesting invocation of the use of "reality" as "reality" is so often not used within the models. Which, frankly is problematic.
No, there's not. Likewise there is no expectation that clouds will increase nor that their cooling effect will dominate. In fact, to be precise the net effect of all cloud formation changes is believed to have a positive effect on temperatures with the best guess forcing of 0.6 W/m^2 with an error of -0.2 and +2.0 according to the IPCC. It's a wide range of magnitude for sure, but notice that the error margin does indicate that clouds will have a net cooling effect even if we got things wrong in cooling favorable direction. I'm not entirely sure of the intent of the question, but there are many ways in which clouds could increase during the night, but not the day. One big way would be by diurnal convection. As the daily heating sets in the convective temperature is often obtained resulting in vigorous convection after maximum solar insolation (remember there is a lag between solar insolation and temperatures). This results in a substantial increase in cloud densities just before nightfall with the "convective debris" lingering until the early morning hours. It happens because of the Sun's energy, but is not directly in-phase with solar insolation. There is a lag. Was that your question? I'm not following you here. Cloud microphysics is the phrase given to the name of physics modules for cloud formation in general circulation models. I was giving you the keywords you might need to find more information about it. You mention "studies" and "relationship". What studies and what relationships do you speak of?
I posted links on clouds and on water vapor. I didn't express admiration for anything. Are you saying that NASA, NOAA and the rest are "fake news"?
