Sciencescience

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 11:48 AM

As climate warms, humidity could put lives in danger

You may have heard the expression: It's not the heat, it's the humidity. Researchers seem to agree, and are now warning that humidity is likely to increase the threat to human health from climate change-related temperature hikes in certain parts of the world.

Those areas include the southeastern United States, the Amazon, western and central Africa, southern areas of the Mideast and Arabian peninsula, northern India and eastern China, the study authors said.

At times, the combination of heat and high humidity in these regions could make it impossible for people to work or, in some cases, even survive, the researchers suggested. Along with harming health, these conditions could cause economic damage.

"The conditions we're talking about basically never occur now -- people in most places have never experienced them," lead author Ethan Coffel, a graduate student at Columbia University's Earth Observatory, said in a university news release.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-warming-climate-change-humidity-danger/

15 replies, 858 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Agent_86 (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 11:52 AM

1. Oh good lord....

Now that the "global warming" scam is being disassembled, will this be the new one? Global Dampness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stygmata (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 04:05 PM

7. For years now global warmers have been trying to explain off the lack of rising temperatures

Last edited Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

by claiming we now have a humidity problem, or in other words, more "hidden heat."

There is one major problem with that THEORY. NOAA does not keep track humidity levels.

More doom and gloom projected by failed computer models.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Micrometer (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 30, 2017, 07:14 PM

10. Relax, the measurement of specific humidity has not been around long enough to conclude much.

Last edited Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:00 AM - Edit history (2)

One of the principal conclusions of the 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme was that the global capacity to observe the Earth's climate system is inadequate and deteriorating worldwide. USCRN, or the U.S. Climate Reference Network consisting of 214 stations in the contiguous United States did not start sending satellites automatic data until 2001.
European GRAS – the Global Navigation Satellite System Receiver for Atmospheric Sounding measures temperature and humidity since 2006.

Who cares that the specific humidity over the oceans has been measured as two tenths of one percent higher since 1971? And, by the way, where did the “normal” starting point in 1971 come from? Normal as compared to what? Water covers two-thirds of the earth’s surface. Do you really expect the moisture in the air over them to remain constant?


What About the Clouds, Andy?
There are two main categories of radiative feedback involved in climate variability and climate change, and Dessler et al. have addressed a portion of one of them.
These major categories of feedback are the same as the two components of Earth’s radiative energy balance: (1) absorbed/reflected solar (shortwave, SW) radiation, and (2) emitted infrared (longwave, LW) radiation. The LW feedbacks are mainly due to water vapor and high clouds, while the SW feedbacks are mainly due to low clouds.

Longwave Feedback
In response to a warming or cooling influence, the LW feedback is mostly controlled by changes in water vapor and high clouds…Dessler et al. addressed the water vapor part, and got indications of positive water vapor feedback (specific humidity increasing with warming).
And guess what? Using the CERES radiation budget data from Aqua during 2002 through 2007 I get about the same result as they did. In fact, I got an infrared feedback parameter right in the middle of the range of all of the IPCC models. (Note that CERES includes the effect of both cirrus clouds and water vapor, so at face value this would suggest the Infrared Iris effect was not operating during this time…but see “Cause or Effect?” below for another interpretation.)

The Rest of the Story: Shortwave Feedback
The other half of the feedback story which Dessler et al did not address is the reflected solar component. This feedback is mostly controlled by changes in low cloud cover with warming. The IPCC admits that feedbacks associated with low clouds are the most uncertain of all feedbacks, with positive or negative feedback possible…although most, if not all, IPCC models currently have positive SW feedbacks.
But I found from the CERES data a strongly negative SW feedback during 2002-2007. When added to the LW feedback, this resulted in a total (SW+LW) feedback that is strongly negative.
Is my work published? No…at least not yet…although I have tried. Apparently it disagrees too much with the IPCC party line to be readily acceptable. My finding of negative SW feedback of around 5 W m-2 K-1 from real radiation budget data (the CERES instrument on Aqua) is apparently inadmissible as evidence.
In contrast, Dessler et al.’s finding of positive LW feedback of 2 W m-2 K-1inferred from the AIRS instrument is admissible.
But whether my SW feedback work is published or not misses the main point. Unless you know both LW and SW feedbacks, you don’t know the sensitivity of the climate system, and so you don’t know how much global warming there will be in the future.
The modelers would probably even claim that everyone already knows water vapor feedback is positive, and so it didn’t need any further observational verification.

Spencer’s Mea Culpa?
While I have believed for years that water vapor feedback might be negative, I will admit the latest evidence is looking more and more like the real story could be on the reflected solar side instead. The radiation budget guys have been trying to tell me all along that it was the SW feedback that was the most uncertain…maybe they are right. Of course, it could be that long-term feedbacks are opposite of the short term ones, like others have tried to tell me when I find negative feedback (insert second smiley)….

Cause or Effect?
But, as we HAVE published in Journal of Climate, there is an issue regarding feedbacks that could throw all of our satellite diagnoses of feedback into a cocked hat anyway. That is the issue of causation.
The issue is related to something that Forster & Taylor (2006 J. Climate) and Forster & Gregory (also 2006 J. Climate) have previously demonstrated: In order to estimate radiative feedbacks, you must first remove any sources of time-varying radiative forcing from the data. No one has ever bothered to do this for the time-varying radiative forcing due to natural cloud variations in the satellite data. It appears to be the largest source of decorrelation in both the satellite data and the IPCC model output.

Such variations can even be proved to exist…they produce spiral patterns when you plot running averages of temperature versus radiative flux. We have even found those patterns in all 18 IPCC models we have analyzed. It is the only possible explanation for those patterns…I challenge anyone to find an alternative explanation.
And here’s what happens if you don’t remove the effects of time-varying radiative forcing from the data before feedback diagnosis: It decorrelates the relationship between total (LW+SW) radiative imbalance versus temperature. This is because the temperature change lags the forcing…90 degrees out of phase for harmonic forcing…which is what causes the spiral patterns. This will cause the diagnosed total feedback parameter to be biased toward zero (which would be a borderline unstable climate system) — even if the true feedback is negative!

In fact, we showed that if the forcing is 100% radiative (e.g. from natural cloud fluctuations) the error in the diagnosis of the total feedback will be 100%! In other words, you can not measure feedback in response to an unknown amount of time-varying radiative forcing. At least not until someone invents a new way.

The Simple Version
If this sounds too technical, it can also be explained in terms of causation: When researchers see what looks like positive cloud feedback with warming…how do they know that the warming wasn’t the result of the clouds (forcing), rather than the other way around (feedback)? Time-varying radiative forcing due to cloud fluctuations completely obscures the evidence of feedback, giving the illusion of a sensitive climate system.

Takin’ it To The Street
Unfortunately, our J. of Climate article has been greeted with deafening silence. Apparently, everyone is too busy burning up computer cycles to see how much virtual global warming they can create in their models. I’m sorry for sounding so cynical, but given the importance of this issue policy-wise, you would think that someone besides me would be working on it.

So…my book describing these issues is almost finished…it’s due at the publisher by March 2. Since even the public understands “cause versus effect”, I decided to put it all down in as simple terms as possible.
Maybe there will be some physicists or engineers out there who understand what I’m talking about.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/02/what-about-the-clouds-andy/

A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data
https://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/FFP-Global-Temperature-booklet-July-2016-PDF.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agent_86 (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 11:56 AM

2. With the sun cooling down and a massive artic freeze...

We won't have to worry about Global Warming Hoaxes..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agent_86 (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 12:10 PM

3. The doomer press is just trying to divert attention from freezing temps and snow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agent_86 (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 12:21 PM

4. Run for teh hills! We're all doomed.....doomed I tell ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agent_86 (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 03:41 PM

5. How much additional humidity is coming our way, Agent 86?

And how much additional heat will it take?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agent_86 (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 04:00 PM

6. Which climate models?

"Using global climate models, the researchers mapped current and projected future "wet bulb" temperatures, which reflect the combined effects of heat and humidity."

You mean the climate models that have failed miserably?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agent_86 (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 06:58 PM

8. More people will die this century from socialist policies

than ever will be harmed by climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:01 PM

11. I don't know if any will die

But I expect many to be hospitalized after attending the New Year's Eve event in Times Square tonight.

The wind chill is forecast to now be -2 degrees

Don't forget, global warming causes global cooling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 02:11 PM

12. Do you think the 21st century will be different than the 20th century?

https://o4anews.com/communism-killed-more-than-wars/
Socialism/Communism Killed More People During the 20th Century Than All Wars Combined

http://www.savageleft.com/poli/mbc.html
Marxism, Socialism, Communism: 20th Century Death Toll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
Mass killings under Communist regimes

https://rickkelo.liberty.me/socialism-mass-murder/
Socialism & Mass Murder in the 20th Century

Then add the 60,000,000 plus killed in the U.S. due to abortion.
Then add the 70,000,000 plus deaths due to malaria because of the left's hoax about DDT.
Then add the 300,000 deaths per year from starvation due to ethanol to promote the global warming hoax.

Leftist polices result in genocide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 31, 2017, 04:56 PM

13. Nah, we have a knack for repeating the same stupid mistakes decade after decade

Last edited Mon Jan 1, 2018, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Seems like as soon as we learn, we forget.

(At least some of us)

There are actually people in this world that think communism is a good idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:04 PM

14. Speaking of short term memory...

finally we agree on something.

Trickle Down will definitely harm more Americans than will Climate Change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveTaxation (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 08:44 PM

15. Trickle down is a vital part of capitalism

And I know how you feel about capitalism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience