Climate Change

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Exactly!

“... Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ...”
“... "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone ..."

Courtesy of foggysail
➥ NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

It's interesting that they don't mention increased cloud formation with increasing water vapor. The net effect of more clouds is a cooling of the earth. I am under the impression that climatic models do a poor job of handling cloud cover. I am also under the impression that small tweaks in cloud cover will change model results from warming to cooling.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

[ShaktiGurl]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

It's interesting that they don't mention increased cloud formation with increasing water vapor. The net effect of more clouds is a cooling of the earth. I am under the impression that climatic models do a poor job of handling cloud cover. I am also under the impression that small tweaks in cloud cover will change model results from warming to cooling.

Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles

Here is a good explanation of what they know about cloud feedback so far -
What is the net feedback from clouds?

They are working out the short and long-term feedback which is still an area of active research.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by cdreid

foggy you need to quit reading rw websites.
l

RW???

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by ShaktiGurl

Here is a good explanation of what they know about cloud feedback so far -
What is the net feedback from clouds?

They are working out the short and long-term feedback which is still an area of active research.

One of the frustrations of the cloud cover uncertainty along with all the other model uncertainties, and I do modeling for a living, is that a certain segment of the human community want me to make significant and expensive lifestyle changes based on the models.

Look into the cold fusion debacle. There were a number of scientific laboratories (GTRI, etc.) that reported replication of Pons et al cold fusion results. Cold fusion never happened it was a mistake. Especially the financial pressure and herd mentality play into the science. The GW issue has many of the cold fusion similarities.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by foggysail

I doubt that is the goal of most people. For example I read in our WSJ that Germany..maybe other European countries have windmills now contributing to...I think the number is 30% of electrical power generation. But that came at a cost in reliability along with a 300% higher cost than we pay here in the states. Cost should matter!
Foggy

In 2009 windpower contributed 7% of the total German KW-hours. I doubt if they are up to 30% now. OBTW, the entire German and Danish coastline and island vistas and seascapes have been irrevocably ruined by these eyesore wind machines.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

If you are looking for the greatest environmental vandals of the lot look no further than our farmers. Depleted aquifers in California have caused far more problems than fracking but I have yet to see the polemicists do their expose documentary on the destruction of the Ogalla aquifer.

There's problems there too of course, but it's apples and oranges.

The pollution and net effect of unrestrained fossil-fuel use is longer-lasting, and will reach farther. And once those fuels are gone, they're gone.

The water problem is one of distribution, not global effect.

(Also, you CAN be against both, y'know)

Since when did a failure to tax an enterprise out of existence constitute a "subsidy" (typical left wing political correctness, but factually untrue) Markets and their aberrations do not work perfectly but they do work better than any alternative.

I dare ANYONE to try to tax the fossil fuel industry out of existence. It's the world's #1 demanded commodity. As you say. markets will sort that all out. All we're trying to do is end the government-aided fire-sale, so that people and industry can see the actual cost of fossil fuel use, and that development of renewables gets proper attention and funding.

(typical left wing political correctness) ... Don't go there, buddy. Glass houses, and all that...

Yes, we are burning far to much fossil fuel and the sooner this stops the better. Yes we need to recycle as much as possible and close all our systems as much as we can but this will not happen, or will be seriously delayed without low cost energy. There are all sorts of unintended consequences related to zealot driven alternative energy schemes and the wealthy are always the last to go without the poor are always the first to suffer shortages and the ones who most benefit from cheap goods and services.

"zealot driven alternative energy schemes" ... As opposed to plutocrat-driven fossil energy schemes? Let's stay away from labels.

We have to be investing in the technology of renewables NOW. Precisely because we currently still have an abundance of low-cost energy and other resources. Furthermore, it's the responsibility of the rich nations to perfect and commercialize renewable energy, so that it's available to the developing nations, so that they can hopefully avoid the same pitfalls and mistakes we made in our rise.

Solar, wind and other renewables will ultimately be lower-cost and have far less impact than fossil fuels, but we have work to do to get there. This will be the growth industry of the next generation. We shouldn't be smothering it in the crib.

[ShaktiGurl]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

One of the frustrations of the cloud cover uncertainty along with all the other model uncertainties, and I do modeling for a living, is that a certain segment of the human community want me to make significant and expensive lifestyle changes based on the models.

Look into the cold fusion debacle. There were a number of scientific laboratories (GTRI, etc.) that reported replication of Pons et al cold fusion results. Cold fusion never happened it was a mistake. Especially the financial pressure and herd mentality play into the science. The GW issue has many of the cold fusion similarities.

I agree and try to get this point across to our customers all the time - it is only a model and they are only as good as the input data and algorithms used to run it. They are often good representations but they are not absolute and we are in the early stages of acquiring the type of data we need to make better predictive models. Still, the data and models from thousands of independent labs and scientists *mostly* show the same trends, which should not be ignored or dismissed. Yet, as you mention, some will jump on any data and try to make policy around it that may or may not make any difference at all. We can see that climate can change, local weather events can be bad-ass and perhaps we could spend time and effort on new technologies that will help us adapt to change rather than trying to "stop it", if it is even possible.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

... a certain segment of the human community want me to make significant and expensive lifestyle changes based on the models.

And you don't wanna lift a finger to change anything. I get it.

There are 1000 different reasons besides AGW to be making some changes. Using one objection to one set of information to excuse not making any changes is a cop-out.

Look into the cold fusion debacle. There were a number of scientific laboratories (GTRI, etc.) that reported replication of Pons et al cold fusion results. Cold fusion never happened it was a mistake. Especially the financial pressure and herd mentality play into the science. The GW issue has many of the cold fusion similarities.

Um, no. Accusing an entire scientific field of mass hysteria, without proof... that's pretty lame. AGW is a fact. You might disagree on some of the numbers and what the impact will be, but AGW is still a fact.

the entire German and Danish coastline and island vistas and seascapes have been irrevocably ruined by these eyesore wind machines.

Ever seen an oilfield, a refinery, an open-pit coal mine, or an oil platform at sea? Seen the mess the tarsands dig is making in the northern forests of Alberta? Ever seen a fouled beach after an oil-spill? How about smog over a city? Did you hear about Lac Megantic? A windmill never blew up a city center.

[Lake-Effect]

btw -Krogensailor is my new hero.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by foggysail

RW???

Right wing.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

One of the frustrations of the cloud cover uncertainty along with all the other model uncertainties, and I do modeling for a living, is that a certain segment of the human community want me to make significant and expensive lifestyle changes based on the models.

Look into the cold fusion debacle. There were a number of scientific laboratories (GTRI, etc.) that reported replication of Pons et al cold fusion results. Cold fusion never happened it was a mistake. Especially the financial pressure and herd mentality play into the science. The GW issue has many of the cold fusion similarities.

Your comments about the limitations of models are bang one LS, but your characterization of the whole cold fusion issue is less than accurate. If you look into it (or remember it ... as I do), you'll see that the process of science actually worked quite well, and quite fast. Following the amazing results reported by Pons and Fleischmann -- reported in a press conference prior to proper peer review -- a number of labs went to work trying to replicate the results. Although there were some very initial positive signs, it quickly became clear the whole thing was bunk. There was never a time when the majority, or even a large number, of fusion researchers agreed with Pons and Fleischmann. They were pretty much alone.

Now, in the case of climate change research, there is mountains of peer-reviewed research that supports the theory. Yes, models are being used as analytical and predictive tools, but they are only one small part. There is plenty of hard data and actual experimental evidence. The weight of this evidence is increasingly coming down on the side of anthropogenically-caused climate change. There is no comparison to the whole cold fusion debacle.

With regard to water vapour increasing the Earth's albedo, this is clearly true. However, the research I've seen does consider this fairly obvious factor. The impact has even been well studied and measured, right down to the impacts that aircraft con-trails make. Of all the complexities of the Earth's bio-system, this is one that is better understood than many.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Life is full of risk ..........Just a matter of a society making choices on what they spend their money on.

Whilst not hypothecated, the UK collects around 40% of the cost of the NHS from fuel duties and annual car tax (over here we merged the 2, so could dispose of a Govt dept - even here that don't happen often!).

Just one of the many ways that the UK is very different from the continent :-)

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um, no. Accusing an entire scientific field of mass hysteria, without proof... that's pretty lame. AGW is a fact. You might disagree on some of the numbers and what the impact will be, but AGW is still a fact.

I submit you do not understand what the word "fact" means. And, BTW, the one who shouts the loudest does not always win.

AGW "science" has many of the same symptoms as the cold fusion foolishness. And it is instructive to see that scientists are not unbiased interpreters of data. So by analogy AGW may have some level of the same biases driven mostly by funding pressures.

What impact will you or any of us make on GW when 8 billion more people come online in the next 50 years with their demands for energy, food, and water.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

In 2009 windpower contributed 7% of the total German KW-hours. I doubt if they are up to 30% now. OBTW, the entire German and Danish coastline and island vistas and seascapes have been irrevocably ruined by these eyesore wind machines.

They're not. Even Denmark (the poster boy of the environmentalists) still gets a lot of electricity from coal. As a result it actually has a pretty high per capita CO2 production.

I would suggest everyone who thinks that we can easily switch to renewables to read David Mackay's "Sustaiable Energy. Without the hot air".

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Your comments about the limitations of models are bang one LS, but your characterization of the whole cold fusion issue is less than accurate. If you look into it (or remember it ... as I do), you'll see that the process of science actually worked quite well, and quite fast. Following the amazing results reported by Pons and Fleischmann -- reported in a press conference prior to proper peer review -- a number of labs went to work trying to replicate the results. Although there were some very initial positive signs, it quickly became clear the whole thing was bunk. There was never a time when the majority, or even a large number, of fusion researchers agreed with Pons and Fleischmann. They were pretty much alone.

Now, in the case of climate change research, there is mountains of peer-reviewed research that supports the theory. Yes, models are being used as analytical and predictive tools, but they are only one small part. There is plenty of hard data and actual experimental evidence. The weight of this evidence is increasingly coming down on the side of anthropogenically-caused climate change. There is no comparison to the whole cold fusion debacle.

With regard to water vapour increasing the Earth's albedo, this is clearly true. However, the research I've seen does consider this fairly obvious factor. The impact has even been well studied and measured, right down to the impacts that aircraft con-trails make. Of all the complexities of the Earth's bio-system, this is one that is better understood than many.

Mike, every week there was another press release from a laboratory confirming the CF results. The piling on was amazing. There were big name laboratories that were seeing CF. I was electrified by news at the time...free energy for the planet. The Wikipedia statements have been significantly modified on this point over the last 3 years. Yes science did win out in the end as it will with GW and AGW and Lake's shouting will have no impact on the AGW endgame.

Additionally the research is not nearly settled on the water vapor and relationship to low and high altitude cloud formation contributions to the energy balance as evidenced by the referenced NASA article above.