Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

...the simple science question i posed

It's a very complex question as although you can predict to a degree the storm systems where tornados are possible, the actual mechanism of their formation is not fully understood.

[sargeant]

It's a very complex question as although you can predict to a degree the storm systems where tornados are possible, the actual mechanism of their formation is not fully understood.

The bit in red equally applies to global warming

The reason i posted the question was because a weather man on CNN when asked why the storm was so violent said maybe the warm air was warmer than normal he did not expand or even try to explain that

However it got my brain dancing (bearing in mind my extensive research called for by u no hoo) heat = energy the violence of the storm must come from more energy
question why only the warm air warmer as the ice in the very north is melting surely the air mass over it must be warmer
Actually the mechanism of there formation is understood but like earthquakes they do not know what makes them touch down. Air turbulence in many cases is in actual fact a horizontal tornado between a higher warm air mass (higher because heat rises) overlapping a lower cold air mass

and i could be totally wrong
but it still makes more interesting debate than my link is bigger and longer than your link

[STEVE G]

How Climate Change May Reshape Tornado Season
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... ason/5659/

"Climate change is supposed, among other things, to bring warmer and moister air to earth. That, of course, would lead to more severe thunderstorms and probably more tornadoes. The issue is that global warming is also forecast to bring about less wind shear. This would allow hurricanes to form more easily, but it also would make it much harder for tornadoes to get the full about lift and instability that allow for your usual thunderstorm to grow in height and become a fully-fledged tornado. Statistics over the past 50 years bear this out, as we've seen warmer and more moist air as well as less wind shear.

Meteorological studies differ on whether or not the warmer and moister air can overcome a lack of wind shear in creating more tornadoes in the far future. In the immediate past, the jet stream, possibly because of climate change, has been quite volatile. Some years it has dug south to allow maximum tornado activity in the middle of the country, while other years it has stayed to the north."

[sargeant]

It turns out that of all the weather phenomena, from droughts to hurricanes, tornadoes are the most complex to answer from a broader atmospheric trends point of view. The reason is that a warming world affects the factors that lead to tornadoes in different ways.

Hence the questions thats plural
hence quote me

and i could be totally wrong

its interesting though if droughts, floods, Hurricanes and storms ARE affected adversely by GW why NOT Tornado's

[MrPlum]

'UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study'
http://principia-scientific.org/support ... study.html

'Professor Vincent Gray, in his latest New Zealand Climate Truth Newsletter, showcases an important new study by Canadian professor, Ross McKitrick that details why the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be abolished.

Detailing compelling facts exposing how government climatologists engaged in data manipulation, subjective bias, suppression of inconvenient evidence disproving their alarmist claims about man-made global warming, McKitrick's study is shown by Professor Gray to be perhaps the most compelling condemnation of junk science yet seen. Gray's full report is detailed below.'

McKitrick makes 11 recommendations for reform. Reading them shows what is wrong with the IPCC (full report here) ... http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/g ... eforms.pdf

This claim is worth highlighting...

'The “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR), which is regarded by the IPCC as a legitimate guide to Global Temperature, falls far short of being a scientific or mathematically acceptable guide to global temperature trends. If this fact were to be accepted by the IPCC most of its arguments would collapse.'

[STEVE G]

As Arctic Ice Vanishes, More Nations Want in on Its Untapped Oil
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/05 ... ing-rights

"Until the Arctic ice began its serious meltdown just a few years ago, hardly anyone cared about the small group of nations that comprised the governing council that met every two years to ponder the future of the far north.

Today, the Arctic Council, created in 1996, would seem to be the coolest club on the planet and every nation wants in.

Last week, in its biennial meeting in Kiruna, Sweden, high above the Arctic Circle, the eight-nation council voted on six new members, none with any geographic link to the north: China, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were granted “permanent observer” status."

[MrPlum]

'Global warming caused by CFCs, not CO2'
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Globa ... 2_999.html

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined - matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,"

Whatever happened to 'the science is settled'?

[sargeant]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).

But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.

What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined - matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said.

I can see that cfcs may well have an effect i got that from my research but as cfcs were banned i did not consider them to be a large ongoing factor so i find that article quite interesting.

the reason i have posted both quotes is because the second quote says temperatures have DECLINED i question that but would be more inclined to think that the SLOWING of the expected/forecast figures was something that cfcs were a factor
As with all the debate and science it takes a long long time for theories to be proven

[STEVE G]

'Global warming caused by CFCs, not CO2'
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Globa ... 2_999.html

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined - matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,"

Whatever happened to 'the science is settled'?

"A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years."

Qing-Bin Lu revives debunked claims about cosmic rays and CFCs

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013 ... -and-cfcs/

[sargeant]

After my research i would not be so quick as to dismiss it out of hand as being of NO EFFECT ALL
I have done some quick searches and had a short debate with my neighbor who was my mentor through my early research we would sit on his stoop for weeks and throw it back and forth (luckily hes just across the street instead of the other side of Hua Hin)
So Mr P i hope you will give me a little more time to investigate further (please bear in mind i will only looking at the raw science from websites i can safely say are not from one side or the other and that is not easy) i found the article interesting
As for scientists debunking fellow scientists steve that is one of the problems with the whole GW CC debate
I was given the following analagy of that by my mate its like current affairs on this forum

[MrPlum]

Qing-Bin Lu revives debunked claims about cosmic rays and CFCs

Response by Qing-Bin Lu to “Qing-Bin Lu revives debunked claims about cosmic rays and CFCs”... http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013 ... ng-bin-lu/

The comments section suggests he needs to do it again.

[STEVE G]

The comments section suggests he needs to do it again.

Yes:

"Why are you correlating CFC's against surface temperatures as an indication of what might be occurring rather than against total change in the heat content of the entire system? Atmospheric temperature change only constitutes around 2.5% of the total heat accumulation in the Earth's systems. Ocean heat build up is around 35 times greater.... and has not slowed down at all. Isn't correlating against something that constitutes only 2.5% of the heating when one is looking for the source of the heating a rather meaningless exercise? Essentially isn't that ignoring the 1st Law of Thermodynamics."

[Bristolian]

The comments section suggests he needs to do it again.

Yes:

"Why are you correlating CFC's against surface temperatures as an indication of what might be occurring rather than against total change in the heat content of the entire system? Atmospheric temperature change only constitutes around 2.5% of the total heat accumulation in the Earth's systems. Ocean heat build up is around 35 times greater.... and has not slowed down at all. Isn't correlating against something that constitutes only 2.5% of the heating when one is looking for the source of the heating a rather meaningless exercise? Essentially isn't that ignoring the 1st Law of Thermodynamics."

Sorry for such a short answer. YES it is against the known laws of thermodynamics

[3wood]

Everybody knows there's no such thing as global warming or melting of the polar icecap, its just propaganda spread by Polar Bears so they can come to Europe and get free housing in European zoos.

[sargeant]

Mr P i have taken some time looking into this cfc thing.
The cosmic rays i am afraid are just a little of my radar i just cannot see how they make any difference as they have been coming to earth since time began.
Mr Lus claim that cfcs are the only reason for global warming flies in the face of facts as does his claim that global temperatures have declined.
Steve the blanket rebuttal of Mr Lus paper while probably correct in many ways also smacks of lets destroy it because it doesnt fit our picture.
I will now put in my own words what i see in all this:-
1. The original GW/CC claims were based on cfcs disrupting the ozone layer and causing a hole
To this end cfcs were almost completely stopped in 1994 and then completely stopped (except in aircarft fire extinguishers) in 1997
2. The world changed to HFCs from then on HFCs are 90+% destroyed in the lower atmosphere although a very small ammount gets up the upper atmosphere where they cause minor problems.
HFCs were supposed to be worked out by 2010 but China and the USA pushed it back to 2020.
3. The scientists have revued there PREDICTED temperature rises from 2002 downward.
Mr Lu seems to be saying the same thing

To a muppet like me it seems the CO2 pushers based their earlier predictions based on the period when BOTH CFCs and CO2 were warming the earths climate but as the CFCs have degraded out of the atmosphere the warming has been from CO2 and the drop in predicted future temperatures COULD and i emphasize could be due to a lag time as the CFCs leave the atmosphere.
If CFCs did cause GW it must follow that if the CFCs are now slowly being eliminated then an equivelent amount of cooling could be expected .
But the warming caused by CO2 will still be the same.
What this little exercise has shown me is that there are many things that need to be taken into account