Relationship between CO2 and Global Warming

[Andre]

Firstly, you have clearly not demonstrated “non compliance with the models”

That sounds like a conclusion but I seem to miss the elaborated reasoning to underscore it; the lack thereof reduces that statement to have the same merit as “Firstly, you have clearly not demonstrated that 1+1=2”

The study we are discussing only addresses Pinatubo, it is not concerned with the cases you are raising.

Exactly! And that’s the reason why it is fundamentally flawed (to use a popular partisan term in the global warming circles), Why? The selective use of data and implicitly discarding the data that falsify it.

Soden's models do not model vulcanism - they account for it's effects using forcings calculated from observation.

Straw man, we are talking about that all the time. Why do those models not account for Agung and La Chichon. Two against one is not an impressive score.

Secondly nothing in a system as complex as the climate can be 'spot on'. But for the reasons I have already repeatedly stated Pinatubo gives a good clean response.

And repeatedly excluding other factors that influence the troposphere temperature. Repeating things does not make them right. You cannot exclude that the post Pinatubo dip would also have occurred without the eruption.

AND the models reproduce it well.

Circular reasoning / aka begging the question. The clean dry effect of aerosols was supposed to be to small to account for all the cooling so, if the remainder is assumed to be water vapour feedback, then the models reproduce it well based on the same assumption that was to be proved. Circular reasoning.

Now what if the cooling was natural whilst in reality -equal to Agung and La Chchon- the real effect of Pinotuba was not only radiative warming of the Stratosphere but also radiative warming of the Troposphere that happened to be superseded by a large natural cooling?

Thirdly your attempt at (what I see as) obfuscation has demonstrably failed.

There you are again: Thirdly your attempt at (what I see as) 2+2=4 has demonstrably failed.

It is simply not reasonable for you to expect me to account for every possible climatic influence on Agung and El Chichon.

Why not? Why give Pinatubo a privileged accounting?

If you do then research it and publish.

Fallacy of the restricted choice. In reality I have a lot more choices, none of which, by the way would have any influence on the failure of the troposphere to react consistently with the same trend on Volcanic induced aerosol forcing like the Stratosphere does.

Anyway, Viner Jones address only Pinatubo, meaning that the paper does not exceed the scientific level of Soden. Restricted data, restricted scope.

I have indulged you for long enough

Absolutely, quite happy to take the candy and expose the fallacies. Appreciate it.

How is it that the models used in Soden et al reproduce, to a good degree, the short wave and long wave radiation anomalies (fig 1)

As I said, begging the question. To put it bluntly: the models are developed empirically to fit reality. They fit reality hence they are right. That is, until reality decides to come up with yet another big unknown.

But now another question. Where do models belong in the scientific method?

I've spent enough time on this issue.

Hmm not enough time to go over whatever I produce and yet spend enough time? But why is it of importance to tell it here? To use it as a emotional appeal fallacy? (The master has no time for the obnoxious pupil and implying that the master is right and the pupil is wrong) I have not forgotten about your opening statement about James Lovelock and my assumed lack of knowledge.

I’d love to have you around some more and give me a chance to expose some more of those abundant fallacies that the global warming hype needs, missing real evidence of the assumed GHG-water vapour effect..

Have you any substantive points to make on the issue at hand? That being that Soden et al demonstrates the ability of their GCMs to accurately model the response of atmospheric water vapour to a change in forcing.

Now if those models are so accurate, why not a reality check and do the same exercise for Agung and La Chichon? Isn’t that how the scientific method works?

 

[Andre]

I wonder over and over again why good news in climate studies never hits major news channels. With this kind of research you'd expect: "Detailed Research Ends Global Warming Myth, World Leaders Consider Abandoning Kyoto":

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/warmer_humidity.html

...like carbon dioxide, the Earth warms, more water evaporates from the ocean, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this leads to a further increase in the surface temperature. This effect is known as "positive water vapor feedback." Its existence and size have been contentiously argued for several years.
...

They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. "Our study confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we expected"

Obviously, the same saturation effect that causes the greenhouse effect to be rather stable with various concentations, the same is true for water vapor. Larger changes in humidity seem to have not much impact on it's greenhouse effect. The first ppms are doing the trick. Water vapor feedback is a very small change (greenhouse gas) of a very small change (temperature) of a very small change (humidity) of a very small change (temperature).