Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)
- Right, temperatures will fall. And since a cooler airmass holds less water the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would also go down. It does not matter if the water vapor feedback where doubling the impact of CO2 or tripling or quadrupling. When the CO2 in the atmosphere goes down, so does the amount of water vapor. Likewise when the CO2 goes up, so does the amount of water vapor. No need for a runaway feedback.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Ken MacClune" <ken.macclune@> wrote:
> > OK, let's step back and think of a hypothetical
> > past. Let's go back to 1700 when the atmospheric
> > concentration of CO2 was not influenced by human
> > activities. Now imagine that instead of
> > increasing CO2 some process the humans of the
> > 1700s were doing was instead decreasing CO2 on a
> > yearly basis.
> > Q) What general impact would the decrease in CO2
> > have that have on global average temperature and
> > why?
> Assuming there's a significant impact from CO2 (roughly correlating to the change in absorption) temperatures would fall. They would likely fall harder too. This all makes perfect sense when consulting what we can find of the ice core record.
> The system is OBVIOUSLY capable of high feedback in the temperature ranges between glacial and interglacial periods. That's because the most profound changes in water vapor feedback and ice albedo feedback are possible at those temperature ranges. The changes provide lots more bang for your feedback buck during these periods.
> I have been pointing this out to you the whole time. The unstable, HIGH feedbacks are NOT in this temperature range...nor can the forcing suggested by CO2 absorption possibly push temperatures high enough to reach the "tipping point" (apparently somewhere past 6C anomaly) necessary to get into another high feedback node. The feedbacks must be fairly weak and ice albedo is most certainly getting weaker at this point. CO2 can't even top temperatures from THIS interglacial period (much less others) without HIGH feedbacks.
> YES, the evidence indicates that there can be very powerful feedbacks. The evidence just indicates that there aren't any powerful WARMING feedbacks right now. YES its been warmer in this interglacial period. But NO we're not going to go above that temperature because the things that forced it there in the first place are in decline. (except possibly CO2...which can't have been the primary force because CO2 increases in the past were always trailing temperature by about 800 years.)
> Unfortunately I fear you'll completely miss this once again and start talking about me not understanding the difference between a single feedback and a complex system of feedbacks...when the only thing that has ever mattered is the complex system of feedbacks. There is literally nothing to fear from AGW without strong feedbacks and its unlikely they exist (in a form that affects AGW strongly)
- I agree with him on the CO2 in the 1700's. Man had negligible affects on CO2 in the 1700's.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mark Koskenmaki" <debate@...> wrote:
> Why do you think man had no influence on CO2 levels in 1700?
> <insert witty tagline here>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken MacClune" <ken.macclune@...>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:00 PM
> Subject: [Global Warming] Re: A nice tool to work out CO2 absorption (PT1)
> OK, let's step back and think of a hypothetical past. Let's go back to 1700
> when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was not influenced by human
> activities. Now imagine that instead of increasing CO2 some process the
> humans of the 1700s were doing was instead decreasing CO2 on a yearly basis.
> Q) What general impact would the decrease in CO2 have that have on global
> average temperature and why?