tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384056639369168576.post1851964715274477183..comments2023-10-08T08:55:06.836-07:00Comments on Mostly Harmless Science Blog: I want a shoehorn, the kind with teethChris Fellowshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03020350770567584929noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384056639369168576.post-55154410412810506332008-04-25T01:26:00.000-07:002008-04-25T01:26:00.000-07:00In my 'assume a spherical horse' model I am assumi...In my 'assume a spherical horse' model I am assuming there is no feedback. :)<BR/><BR/>I guess I wouldn't know where to begin as far as calculating water vapor feedback- I should have a look and see what the IPCC have done. I expect like me they are simple physical chemists (or yet simpler beings) and are trying to fit the universe to something straightforward like y = mx + c. So I wouldn't trust any of the modelling that has been done- I am sure that important physics will inevitably have been left out- and will await more experimental evidence.<BR/><BR/>I don't see any possibility of a catastrophic positive feedback, given the scale greenhouse gas emissions that will certainly have happened in geological time without turning us into Venus... but a negative feedback that just manages to cancel out any effect of additional greenhouse gases seems too good to be true. <BR/><BR/>-ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384056639369168576.post-8021976164855117142008-04-24T21:07:00.000-07:002008-04-24T21:07:00.000-07:00This is all great stuff but what about the feedbac...This is all great stuff but what about the feedback?<BR/><BR/>CO2 absorption/retransmission of energy alone accounts for only 1/3rd of the projected global warming. The other 2/3rds is water vapor feedback in most of the IPCC-type models.<BR/><BR/>So how does this perspective fit in with that? ...<BR/><BR/>http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm<BR/><BR/>"I want to make it clear that the average effects of precipitation systems are indeed contained in today's computerized climate models. But for global warming, a model mimicking their average behavior isn't sufficient, for it is too easy to get the right answer for the wrong reason. Instead, we need to answer the question: How do precipitation systems change in response to mankind's small addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere? This is where I believe the models are wrong. Models tend to amplify the Earth's natural greenhouse effect in response to mankind's small addition of greenhouse gases; but I believe that real precipitation systems do just the opposite...they slightly reduce the total greenhouse effect by adjusting water vapor and cloud amounts, to keep it in proportion to the amount of available sunlight."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384056639369168576.post-29271322820539923802008-04-11T00:26:00.000-07:002008-04-11T00:26:00.000-07:00Hmmm, I'm not as ruinously gloomy with my eyeballi...Hmmm, I'm not as ruinously gloomy with my eyeballing estimates as I thought. I printed it out and chopped it up and weighed the bits on an analytical balance (trust me- this is good scientific procedure, you can find it in reputable journals) and there is actually 16% available under the curve- which gives 10 K [for an increase in carbon dioxide of a gazillion percent].<BR/><BR/>Unless... you are saying that the absorption due to carbon dioxide that we can see in the 290 K radiance trace is going to have the same magnitude for the average temperature of Earth curve, in which case it would be saturated? This is not the case because at a lower radiance there will be fewer photons to intercept, and thus the CO2 absorption will be proportionally smaller.Chris Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03020350770567584929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384056639369168576.post-12519440988164009612008-04-10T23:16:00.000-07:002008-04-10T23:16:00.000-07:0010% was my guess for the amount of area within tha...10% was my guess for the amount of area within that bandwidth, between the curve and the x-axis. True, I should cut and paste and measure it more accurately, but I was deliberately picking a high-end estimate in order to get a 'worst-case scenario' number.<BR/><BR/>Note that tropospheric ozone also looks like it has a reasonable scope to act as a greenhouse gas...Chris Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03020350770567584929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384056639369168576.post-20321940306259379712008-04-10T00:51:00.000-07:002008-04-10T00:51:00.000-07:00ChrisI am a believer in AGW, but do not for one mi...Chris<BR/><BR/>I am a believer in AGW, but do not for one minute think it is caused by GHG's any more. You look at the curve for emissions, noting the impact of CO2 and wonder what will happen if additional CO2 reduces the area under that curve by 10%, You then go on to calculate that global T would have to rise by 6 deg K to increase IR sufficiently to restore energy balance. Logical enough, but re-visit the curve. The reason that there is a clear window of CO2 effect is because CO2 does not absorb any energy outside of that specific IR wavelength band. Hence it doesn't matter how much additional CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere, it will never reduce the area under that curve by a further 10%, because only a few % of the total area of the curve still lies within that spectral bandwidth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384056639369168576.post-64424190518241852982007-03-18T23:57:00.000-07:002007-03-18T23:57:00.000-07:00What do you think about the de-alkalanisation of t...What do you think about the de-alkalanisation of the oceans. Anything ruinously doom and gloom possible there? Is adaptation of water species quick enough by your reckoning?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com