tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4070547740658770626..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: L. Carey Plays CarnacEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30684444777374389232011-03-02T20:21:36.987-05:002011-03-02T20:21:36.987-05:00a_ray_in_dilbert_space said... "The speed of ...a_ray_in_dilbert_space said... "The speed of Judy's reversal tends to make me wonder whether somebody had a word with her".<br /><br />Surely you don't mean one of her doubt merchandising sponsors which she assures us are not relevant to the current (ahem...) "debate"?chekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09076463055055404580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28917464044028963002011-03-01T22:20:41.094-05:002011-03-01T22:20:41.094-05:00Merci David. Sure isn't the first time.
:)Merci David. Sure isn't the first time.<br /><br />:)DeNihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13546935307602886422011-03-01T19:12:35.963-05:002011-03-01T19:12:35.963-05:00DeNihilist --- All wet, I fear.DeNihilist --- All wet, I fear.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81637168084464195222011-03-01T06:33:08.938-05:002011-03-01T06:33:08.938-05:00Holly Stick:
Clouds are a source of uncertainty ...Holly Stick:<br /><br />Clouds are a source of uncertainty / affect confidence in global circ/climate models, but I wouldn't say they're much of a problem. David Benson stated what is known about types of clouds and warming.<br /><br />Lindzen and others have claimed "clouds" (net of all types as atmosphere warms) act as a negative feedback, but there's no evidence that that's so, or that it's significant. (Evidence is it's net positive. Even if it's net negative, that it's not showing negative means the negative would not be important).<br /><br />Andrew Dessler, who's debated Lindzen (and if my memory serves me, once was going to debate someone on the radio but they didn't show up, so it ended up being more informative than a debate), wrote about this at RealClimate:<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback/#more-5676<br /><br />Roy Spencer actually said clouds <i>cause</i> the ENSO. They're certainly part of the ocean-atmosphere cycle, but that's a very fringe idea.<br /><br />Lindzen's iris didn't pan out, and Spencer's "clouds cause ENSO" has no support from research or other scientists. The "galactic cosmic rays produce more clouds cyclically and that's what's causing warming" theory was simply unfounded.<br /><br />Just my way of saying it's climate scientists who are searching for something to throw at anthropogenic global warming who seem to have trouble with clouds. And anti-science skeptics. The 90% of climate scientists who aren't them neither ignore clouds in their models or presentations nor give cloud reactions undue weight.Marion Delgadonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66373180128157938882011-02-28T21:48:27.741-05:002011-02-28T21:48:27.741-05:00Dr. Rabbitt says - {Large amounts of heat energy a...Dr. Rabbitt says - {Large amounts of heat energy are absorbed when water evaporates and given off when it condenses (aka latent heat). Since the temperature decreases with altitude, water vaporized at the surface carries energy into the atmosphere where it condenses (aka rain drops) this releases the energy.}<br /><br />Now you have probably been asked this a hundred and one times, but here goes anyway....<br /><br />So as the planet, on average heats up, some of the extra energy will be used to vapourize water (basically entangling itself within the vapour?). As this vapour rises it takes this extra energy to a higher area of the atmosphere along the way shedding bits. But the majority gets ejected when the vapour phase changes back to liquid at a higher altitude then where it was co-joined. So far so good?<br /><br />So then is it reasonable to ask, is this transport of energy by vapour not by-passing a lot of the CO2 radiative "trap"? And when the majority is shed from the phase change, is not this extra energy now above the critical layer of CO2 "trapping"? (I know that trap is the wrong word) So could this process be a negative forcing and actually cool the average earth temp a bit?<br /><br />And to be way out there, is there no washing out of CO2 from rainfall? I know that in my high effeciency hot water boilers, I have to use a condensate nuetralizer because the liquid that the condensation process within the boiler heat exchanger produces can be quite acidic as low as 4. I have been told that this liquid is carbonic acid, made from the washing out of CO2 from the combustion process. So can there be a washing out of CO2 from the now larger amounts of rainfall that we expect to get from the rising energy profile?<br /><br />Or am I all wet? :)DeNihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68085358141129766582011-02-28T21:45:13.035-05:002011-02-28T21:45:13.035-05:00>6 is higher. Paleoclimate and volcanic stuff ...>6 is higher. Paleoclimate and volcanic stuff shows that the lower bound is a lot stronger.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7122896711131121872011-02-28T20:53:22.725-05:002011-02-28T20:53:22.725-05:00David, I am begining to see why clouds are such a ...David, I am begining to see why clouds are such a problem for climate scientists.Holly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43942302359031843022011-02-28T20:30:44.902-05:002011-02-28T20:30:44.902-05:00Well, still, even 1-6C as the "likely" r...Well, still, even 1-6C as the "likely" range, means estimated probability for this range is somewhere between 67 and 90%. And presumably the chances/risk of > 6C is equal to that for < 1C.<br /><br />Meanwhile, AFAIK, most serious scholars of this issue are looking at something like 2-4C, with a higher level of confidence.Deep Climatehttp://deepclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53801476729990994472011-02-28T20:30:01.841-05:002011-02-28T20:30:01.841-05:00Holly Stick --- Low clouds cool more than warm the...Holly Stick --- Low clouds cool more than warm the surface; high clouds (cirrus) the reverse.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-739288540287117072011-02-28T19:27:49.468-05:002011-02-28T19:27:49.468-05:00OK, so when it's water vapour it acts as a GHG...OK, so when it's water vapour it acts as a GHG and makes it even warmer at the surface, but if it condenses into a cloud it blocks the sun and makes it cooler?Holly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83035403729815126432011-02-28T19:15:39.093-05:002011-02-28T19:15:39.093-05:00Yes, I sure am.Yes, I sure am.Holly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81562239395222097952011-02-28T19:13:08.028-05:002011-02-28T19:13:08.028-05:00Holly, you are starting to confuse water vapor and...Holly, you are starting to confuse water vapor and condensed water droplets, aka clouds, something that always happens.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27275674355220230652011-02-28T19:08:16.424-05:002011-02-28T19:08:16.424-05:00I was responding to what Denihilist wrote above:
...I was responding to what Denihilist wrote above:<br /><br />"...I know that I am missing something, but if there is a limit on vapour and clouds, then does this not also limit the amount of surface water that can vapourize?..."<br /><br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/l-cary-plays-karnak.html?showComment=1298857591768#c4191785265783237398<br /><br />That is, I understood Eli to say water that has vaporized is limited by becoming colder as it rises until it becomes precipitation; but that this does not limit how much more surface water can be vaporized.<br /><br />As Minnie points out, the surface temperature limits how much water would be vaporized.<br /><br />But then, since the already vaporized water might block the sun and cause cooling at the surface it might cause less water to be vaporized down below, until the wind blew the clouds away and let the sun shine again. <br /><br />It's been cold and snowing or cloudy all day today; no sun and no evaporization here. Sigh.Holly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23232414824356967342011-02-28T16:54:52.304-05:002011-02-28T16:54:52.304-05:00Possibly HS meant that there's no limit to the...Possibly HS meant that there's no limit to the water available to be evaporated, which is true. As mentioned above, the global average amount of WV is determined by global average air temp, there of course being much local variation in both.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73849442556282757082011-02-28T14:25:14.934-05:002011-02-28T14:25:14.934-05:00HollyStick. When you say:
"There is no limit...HollyStick. When you say:<br /><br />"There is no limit to how much water can be vaporized at the surface, " <br /><br />I do not really agree with you. Water evaporates given that there is enough energy available to change phase (latent heat). That is, I object to your "There is no limit". The limit is the amount of energy that can be used to evaporate the water. That means that you can not dissociate this from other energy fluxes.<br /><br />But the rest is OK for me.<br /><br />MinnieMickeyMouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82160446626549797932011-02-28T13:19:03.583-05:002011-02-28T13:19:03.583-05:00Pictures always help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...Pictures always help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_windHolly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47772749346943699412011-02-28T11:58:55.400-05:002011-02-28T11:58:55.400-05:00Thanx for that Dr. Bunny and Steve and Holly. I wi...Thanx for that Dr. Bunny and Steve and Holly. I will read the replies more carefully tonight. Really, much appreciated.DeNihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83513410989665192922011-02-28T00:40:16.340-05:002011-02-28T00:40:16.340-05:00Can I put it into really simple terms, Eli and Ste...Can I put it into really simple terms, Eli and Steve, and see if this is right?<br /><br />Water vaporizes at the surface then rises until it is so cold that it has to turn into precipitation. There is no limit to how much water can be vaporized at the surface, but there is a limit to how much water will stay in clouds as they get higher and colder.<br /><br />So as more water evaporates, you will get more rain, but the rain will not necessarily fall in the same place as the evaporation took place, since clouds are moved by wind. So you could have evaporation and perhaps drought in one area leading to heavier rain in the next area and evaporation and drought further on again. (I live in Calgary. Pretty often it rains in BC as the clouds are pushed over the mountains, then we get a dry windy chinook.)Holly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61728048262004476522011-02-27T23:16:30.133-05:002011-02-27T23:16:30.133-05:00Not this Carnac:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carn...Not this Carnac:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarnacDavid B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57923262781067085212011-02-27T22:12:12.455-05:002011-02-27T22:12:12.455-05:00Thanks Steve. Eli's comment was in reply to a...Thanks Steve. Eli's comment was in reply to a statement about it being only the radiative properties of water vapor. . .<br /><br /> *<br /> Eli Rabett | February 26, 2011 at 5:58 pm | Reply<br /><br /> No it is also about the thermodynamical properties of water molecules, principally that they can vaporize and condense as a function of temperature and also that there is a hell of a lot of liquid water lying around.<br /><br /> Large amounts of heat energy are absorbed when water evaporates and given off when it condenses (aka latent heat). Since the temperature decreases with altitude, water vaporized at the surface carries energy into the atmosphere where it condenses (aka rain drops) this releases the energy. This limits the concentration of water vapor (and clouds) with altitude. If the surface warms, more water will vaporize. That is the feedback from any process that warms the surface.<br /><br />Is that the answer you were asking about De?EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56052154405127369512011-02-27T21:58:21.049-05:002011-02-27T21:58:21.049-05:00DeNihilist, hotter air => more water vapor per ...DeNihilist, hotter air => more water vapor per the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, IIRC 7% per degree C. Trenberth has a paper with the details. There's no practical upper limit on this. This does not mean clouds will necessarily do anything other than get soggier, what they will do otherwise as warming advances being an area of intense study. Regardless, the concentration of water vapor is greatest at sea level and decreses with altitude until it virtually vanishes at the tropopause. Clouds depend on the availability of water vapor and so behave in a broadly consistent manner, as with e.g. the progression from low-altitude high-WV cumulus to high-altitude low-WV cirrus.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21595213972924470882011-02-27T21:49:23.759-05:002011-02-27T21:49:23.759-05:00I blame "virtual" reality. People are s...I blame "virtual" reality. People are so dependent on their entertainment, and kids are so addicted to constant access, that the idea of silence, a book made of paper, or anything that does not require oodles of energy, no matter how inexpensive, is considered mildly obscene. These are ready-made victims for a disinformation campaign that says they need not do anything except consume. None of us are exempt from the primary idea that the earth and our fellow humans are there to be exploited for our comfort.<br /><br />It's easy to understand the need to justify one's existence, but waste and exploitation have always been at the center of our polity. It's just getting more obvious.susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16829151452002682271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23449522778565133142011-02-27T21:45:20.978-05:002011-02-27T21:45:20.978-05:00FC, just to note that part of what Revkin et al. m...FC, just to note that part of what Revkin et al. miss is the message inherent in the failure of the media to treat AGW as the existential threat it is. The front page of the NYTimes is probaly as good a proxy as any for what the U.S. media establishment thinks is important, and AGW is way, way down on the list. The readership very much understands that message and reacts (well, mostly fails to react) appropriately. This is where the vast bulk of the information deficit lies, not in the content of the articles. Obviously the media is capable of treating AGW appropriately as happened with WWII and the Cold War, and to a lesser extent with things like the build-up to the Iraq War (in which the Times infamously acted as a willing conduit for misinformation), and there's a very interesting discussion to be had about this, but it says a lot about Revkin et al. that they're entirely MIA on this subject. Of course the European media has the same fundamental problem, just a bit less extreme.<br /><br />That said, I don't want to minimize the responsibility of the Revkins of the world to face the problem squarely and do the best job they can. That Revkin bases his view of the problem on advice from the likes of Pielke Jr. and John Christy rather than Ray Pierrehumbert and Jim Hansen (both of whom have made specific efforts to educate him) is just plain depressing. Fortunately there are plenty of journalists (Stephen Leahy e.g.) who don't have this problem, but I have the impression that they become rare indeed once one gets into the ranks of the editors who make decisions on such things as article placement.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41917852657832373982011-02-27T20:46:31.768-05:002011-02-27T20:46:31.768-05:00Hey Prof. Bunny,
I find it hard to keep up with ...Hey Prof. Bunny,<br /><br />I find it hard to keep up with you, but I have asked a couple of questions to you on JC's latest threads, but you seem to have done gone down your bunny hole again. Or maybe you don't want to answer, fair enough. But if you could answer at least this one, I would much appreciate it.<br /><br />DeNihilist | February 26, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Reply <br />Dr.Rabbitt, you have left me confused here. – {This limits the concentration of water vapor (and clouds) with altitude. If the surface warms, more water will vaporize. That is the feedback from any process that warms the surface}<br /><br />I know that I am missing something, but if there is a limit on vapour and clouds, then does this not also limit the amount of surface water that can vapourize?<br /><br />Thanx Dr. BunnyDeNihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25905378975292613362011-02-27T20:24:30.502-05:002011-02-27T20:24:30.502-05:00bought, not brought the posturing.bought, not brought the posturing.Flavius Colliumnoreply@blogger.com