Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
307 replies to this topic

#61    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:13 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

From that paper;
"Clouds generally decrease both the net SW heating and the net LW cooling cooling of Earth, the former effect being about twice the magnitude of the latter"
if something decreases heating then it is a negative feedback.

Quote

So the warming effect is twice as strong as the cooling effect.
i think you misunderstood it.


#62    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:16 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

if something decreases heating then it is a negative feedback.

i think you misunderstood it.

It is you who misunderstand. It says the warming trend and the cooling trend are both decreased - but the cooling trend is half the warming trend - hence net warming. Trying reading it again.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#63    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:51 PM

Another paper pointing to Clouds as a net amplifying influence;

http://geotest.tamu....Dessler2011.pdf

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#64    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 04:10 PM

"One of the basic tenets of the IPCC view on global warming is that cloud feedbacks are positive. That is, clouds react to a warming influence by further amplifying the warming.


This makes all the difference in the world for forecasts of global warming because the existence of negative cloud feedbacks could limit manmade global warming to less than 0.5 deg. C by late in this century, while positive feedbacks could result in ten times that amount of warming: 5 deg. C.

What is peculiar about all of the IPCC climate models now producing positive cloud feedbacks is that it is well known in the climate business that the average effect of clouds on the climate system is one of cooling…not warming. In the presence of radiative heating by the sun, clouds provide a stronger solar shading effect than their greenhouse warming effect, leading to a net reduction in average global temperatures by about 5 deg. C.

Another way of looking at this is, as the sun warms the Earth, a point is reached where the clouds in effect say “OK, that’s enough sunlight. We’ve got the temperature we want now.....”


"....I know the IPCC would disagree, but I think what Robert Cess said 12 years ago remains true today:

“the [models] may be agreeing now simply because they’re all tending to do the same thing wrong. It’s not clear to me that we have clouds right by any stretch of the imagination.”

In a court of law, you would never be able to convict clouds as accomplices in the ‘crime’ of global warming. Indeed, the ‘balance of evidence’ suggests they have been acting to reduce the small amount of warming being caused by more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

read the rest here:
http://www.drroyspen...global-warming/

Edited by Little Fish, 11 August 2012 - 04:11 PM.


#65    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 04:29 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Another paper pointing to Clouds as a net amplifying influence;

http://geotest.tamu....Dessler2011.pdf

the Dessler paper was rapidly published as a response to Spencer's original paper. Spencer disagrees with Dessler. I'm sure you know all this, its been prominent on the blogs.
http://www.drroyspen...keeps-mounting/


#66    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 04:47 PM

Spencer unfortunately is devoid of credibility - he makes to many mistakes in his analysis.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#67    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:29 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Spencer unfortunately is devoid of credibility - he makes to many mistakes in his analysis.

Br Cornelius
its amazing just how many specialists you have to deride as liars and incompetents to justify your position.
could it be that you are too partisan on this?


#68    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:49 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

its amazing just how many specialists you have to deride as liars and incompetents to justify your position.
could it be that you are too partisan on this?

Simply do some real research into why I make that claim. His papers have not stood up to the peer review of his contemporaries because he has made many technical errors in his analysis. Only by holding to the conclusions of his papers despite been shown  their flaws - has he been able to maintain a skeptical stance. He has handled satellite data with such incompetence that his papers conclusions are void.

Do you really want me to show you the proof of this ??

http://www.forbes.co...gns-apologizes/

Cherry picking on a grand scale - and he thought he could get away with it :w00t:

Quote

Summary:  Roy Spencer’s latest paper, published in Remote Sensing, supposedly “blew a gaping hole” in the standard theory of climate change.  A new paper by Andrew Dessler shows that this is just another in a long string of Roy’s faulty claims to prove that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought.  The main problem in all of these attempts has been rampant abuse of statistics.  Typically, Roy would brush off such criticisms, relying on the statistical naïveté of his core audience and the media, and claim he is being persecuted by the “IPCC gatekeepers”.  In this case, one of Dessler’s figures shows very clearly how Spencer and his co-author Danny Braswell left out of their analysis all the data that didn’t fit with their hypothesis. It’s so clear that even people who don’t know much about statistics can see the problem.  There is no running from this one–no claiming that Spencer is being persecuted–unless he wants us to believe he’s being persecuted by his own data.

http://bbickmore.wor...ed-by-own-data/





Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 06:22 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#69    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:35 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

maybe you should read both sides, before you judge who the liars and incompetents are.
http://pielkeclimate...d-peter-gleick/


#70    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:40 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

maybe you should read both sides, before you judge who the liars and incompetents are.
http://pielkeclimate...d-peter-gleick/

The data speaks for itself - and this is only the last in a very long series of deceptions perpetrated on the world by Spencer.
He is entirely politically motivated and has stated so in his own words.

The empirical evidence just fails to support his claims -  which is that clouds are the primary driver of climate change - the current warming is entirely attributable to clouds. Just think about how ridiculous that actually is.

Spencer is even inconsistent with what you have been arguing.

Just to top it off - he's a Creationist :tu: which I think shows a distinct bias towards denial of reality.

PS - We have discussed the credibility of Pielke as an impartial judge of climate science.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 07:09 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#71    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 09:15 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

its amazing just how many specialists you have to deride as liars and incompetents to justify your position.
could it be that you are too partisan on this?

Could it be that there's reason for no nswer forthcoming on that question?
:yes:

The entire issue is politically motivated.
Calling people on the glaringly obvious pisses them off.

I shall quote from Dr. Jack Scmidtt's resignation from the Planetary Society some time ago.  One of his issues was the Society's adherence to this Global Warming stuff.


Quote

As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a "consensus" that humans are causing global warming in when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. "Consensus", as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the "global warming scare" is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.


Edited by MID, 11 August 2012 - 09:15 PM.


#72    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:23 AM

Funny hero that Scmidtt



Is that how you do science in your neighbourhood MID ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 12 August 2012 - 11:25 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#73    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 12 August 2012 - 05:53 PM

Nope.

In my neck of the woods, only real, non agenda-driven science takes place.
Chedck it out...culmination of some recent science.  The way my type of people do it.
Dr. Schmitt appreciates this.
It's not quite so dramatic as the end of the world due to man made global warming (or is that now Climate Change?), but it'll have to suffice for science in my neck of the woods.





You have a nice end of the world.

Personally, I contuinue to smile as we discover a whole new world  as we've never been able to do  before.

I prefer the happines invoked by real science to the doom and gloom projected  by the Algore crowd.

:tsu: :clap:


#74    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,462 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 August 2012 - 07:15 PM

So you believe it acceptable to cherry pick data ???

Schmidt goes even further in denying that the Greenhouse effect is real in any form. He's a real extremist kook.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#75    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:11 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 12 August 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Funny hero that Scmidtt



Is that how you do science in your neighbourhood MID ?

Br Cornelius

Jack does have a sense of humor, so he could be considered funny.
But he is a hero, having spent his life studying the planet, and doing something that 10 men before him had done in the past two and a half years.

You can say that based on a  4 second snippet of Jack saying he's a denier of man-made global warming???

:td: :td:

You were attempting to define cherry-picking.
You wouldn't last two seconds in the presence of this man.  He'd chew you up and spit you out.  And you know it.
Please.  It's time to grow up if you're going to discuss here.

And by the way, this thread is entitled "Get over it: Climate change is happeneing."

You haven't gotten over the fact that it is, and that there's  nothing to support the idea than mankind is causing it.

Thus, now ad homs are launched at Dr. Schmitt???  For saying boldly what so many of his colleagues agree with.

It offends the kook fringe, and knows full well that they won't be able to prove their contentions one bit.

Genius.

Climate change is a natural, cyclical occurrance.
As the threads title says, "Get Over It..."

Edited by MID, 12 August 2012 - 11:21 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users