Comments on: Water Vapor Feedback

By: cheap true religion brand

cheap true religion brand — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:12:54 +0000

i like it very much !!!

By: julie

julie — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:34:04 +0000

re water vapour negative feedback
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm

By: Vesa

Vesa — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:01:14 +0000

I take back what I said in my previous post: There WAS a response to my post on the website I mentioned. You can check and evaluate it for yourself.

By: Vesa

Vesa — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:45:12 +0000

Since writing my previous post, I also tried to put a post on the discussion thread here: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/greenhouse-effect-revisited/ , where somebody purports to “scientifically prove” the greenhouse theory. In my post there I put the same arguments I presented here in my previous post. Sadly, and revealingly, they did not publish my post. Instead, they have chosen posts praising the article for publication. – Curiously, the basic assumption in that article is that the Earth is a hemisphere. Why not pancake.

By: Vesa

Vesa — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:32:59 +0000

TangGeng (among others) makes a very important point. The “rightists” talk about water only as a greenhouse gas. Water is, of course, much more than this. It is very unique in that it is the only gas in the atmosphere that can exist there in all three phases, i.e. gas, water and ice. In addition the the greenhouse effect, the following points about water are vitally important:
- There are virtually limitless quantities of water available to equilibrate with air.
- Water carries heat to the higher atmosphere and condenses there when it reaches the saturation point and suitable nuclei. This condensation releases a large amount of heat and water rains down to carry a new load.
- Clouds, particularly as their upper surface often consists if ice, have a strong albedo effect.
- Moist, warm air is carried also towards the poles with winds. If the temperature tends to increase on the equator, cloud formation towards the poles obviously increases. This could lead to a greater temperature gradient between the equator vs. the polar reagions. If we suppose such a gradient, it would also give power to sea currents and seawater mixing.
I hope I have made myself clear enough as to why I think that water is a strong factor in keeping the atmosphere´s energy budget close to constant, provided that the incoming solar radiation is constant.
The “rightists” seem to largely exclude these water effects from their calculations. Perhaps including them would make the models too unpredictable.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:46:41 +0000

Absurd images from recent National Dutch Climate Change PR-Event “Beat the Heat”.
Meet the activists – simply too dim-witted and self-absorbed to realize what fools they are making of themselves..
Meet the winners of the Climate Science Quiz ["What would the temperature of the earth be without the influence of G/house gases??"]..
and watch someone being woken up.. by the subversive methods of an undercover skeptic..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPwFQT9RK8I

By: Rob J Mitchell

Rob J Mitchell — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:49:45 +0000

The question should be “Does evaporation cause warming?” because this is essentially what the climate models are claiming. Of course this is daft since a reaction that yields energy must yield energy if the reaction occurs. Ie if evaporation could cause warming then warming must occur if evaporation occurs. It wont wait 6 billion years!
Of course evaporation causes both cooling and warming which creates a U-shaped buffer, and all buffering system are perfect examples of negative feedback.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:02:57 +0000

Waldo,

“Interesting. Could you give us an example?”

Ask Gavin Schmidt over at RC how well his models do clouds. They are lousy with precipitation also.

By: An Inquirer

An Inquirer — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:40:02 +0000

I am not pursuing what John Moore has in mind. However, Waldo, if you asking in good faith, here is a reference from a pro-AGW source (a term that is used for convenience). On overhead #34 of http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf

Also, the IPCC has stated the problem with modeling cloud cover a number of times.

By: Waldo

Waldo — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:26:54 +0000

******”I have found the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society increasingly polluted with climate simulation papers. Usually, somewhere towards the end of the paper, they quietly mention that they really don’t know how to deal with clouds (i.e. the model skill at forecasting cloud cover, cloud types, etc, is terrible).”

Interesting. Could you give us an example?