Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening

309 posts in this topic

The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming.
can i see that please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Global warming" is a multi trillion $ industry and probably the most corrupt, what ever happens it wont stop it's a runaway train it feeds off peoples fear and there's nothing better than that for making money just by adding eco. green bio etc to the name of your company will increase the worth of it's shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can i see that please.

The trend is warming - if the trend were cooling then we could say that clouds were damping it. They are not.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disregard,

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trend is warming

this is what you said "clouds are both coolers and warmers. The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming."

I am asking for you to show empirical evidence that the net effect of more clouds is warming, in other words I am asking for empirical evidence of a net positive feedback.

- if the trend were cooling then we could say that clouds were damping it. They are not.

then you are not understanding feedback.

a positive feedback response to warming means something adds further heat, negative feedback means something adds cooling (or reduces the warming).

it is still possible for a system to warm with a negative feedback if the cooling feedback is less than the initial warming, this is damping.

the alarmist point of view requires a positive feedback, otherwise there is nothing to worry about.

here's a thought experiment - would the world be warmer or cooler if the planet was completely white with cloud?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what you said "clouds are both coolers and warmers. The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming."

I am asking for you to show empirical evidence that the net effect of more clouds is warming, in other words I am asking for empirical evidence of a net positive feedback.

then you are not understanding feedback.

a positive feedback response to warming means something adds further heat, negative feedback means something adds cooling (or reduces the warming).

it is still possible for a system to warm with a negative feedback if the cooling feedback is less than the initial warming, this is damping.

the alarmist point of view requires a positive feedback, otherwise there is nothing to worry about.

Let me put this simply - the net radiative flux shows that heat is accumulating in the system. This shows that the climate is warming and is warming at a rate predicted by climate models which show positive atmospheric moisture feedbacks. If it were anything else then we would be expecting less warming than is currently occuring. The various models all allow for different levels of moisture amplification - and the fit that those models are to hindcasts and current events is a measure of how successfully they predict the degree of amplification.

Atmospheric moisture is both an amplifier and smoother of warming. It is not of itself the cause of a runaway feedback - it is simply a factor.

Additionally to this the increased atmospheric moisture contributes directly to significant local climatic changes - such as the increased risk of extreme precipitation events - which are observed throughout the planet. This has direct consequences for people on the ground.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put this simply - the net radiative flux shows that heat is accumulating in the system. This shows that the climate is warming and is warming at a rate predicted by climate models which show positive atmospheric moisture feedbacks. If it were anything else then we would be expecting less warming than is currently occuring.

Br Cornelius

Where clouds are in fact cooling (insignificantly) while accelerating the global heating trend, see Rossow and Zang (1995).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

So the warming effect is twice as strong as the cooling effect.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put this simply - the net radiative flux shows that heat is accumulating in the system. This shows that the climate is warming and is warming at a rate predicted by climate models which show positive atmospheric moisture feedbacks.

that is not empirical evidence. it is an assumption.

just because climate models may have been programmed with a positive feedback does not mean there is a positive feedback in the real world.

clouds have a net cooling effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is not empirical evidence. it is an assumption.

just because climate models may have been programmed with a positive feedback does not mean there is a positive feedback in the real world.

clouds have a net cooling effect.

Refer to the study which shows the net effect been warming by a factor of two based on empirical evidence. I am certain there are other papers showing similar results.

No they are not cooling. Only the unsupported Iris theory of Lindzen makes that false claim.

When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.

Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all

I am going to ask this simple question - how many times do you have to be shown to be wrong before you actually admit you are wrong ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 p***es 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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny hero that Scmidtt

[media=]

[/media]

Is that how you do science in your neighbourhood MID ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

[media=]

[/media]

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny hero that Scmidtt

[media=]

[/media]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.