Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Oh dear, so we are reduced to recycling already refuted arguments, apparently. It has already been explained in this thread, at some length, why it is wrong simply to add up water vapour and CO2 contributions.

 

But then, taking refuge in ignorance and firmly resisting any opportunity to learn is a hallmark of climate change deniers and creationists, so it was only to be expected.  

 

Because YOU and your AlGorian friends have made statements does NOT by any means constitute "already refuted arguments."

Anything that does not advance your agenda, is not "simply wrong."  It is simply upsetting to you.

 

You pretend to know everything already, so learning is far beneath you.  

 

You cannot counter the profound concentration of atmospheric water vapor, relative to CO2, at ratios of 15,000 to 400, respectively.

You cannot counter the far broader absorption spectrum of water vapor relative to CO2, already provided.

You cannot counter the fact that organic decomposition of plant and animal matter far exceeds human CO2 output.

So you attack  the intelligence of those who deign to point out scientific facts.  How petty of you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing is... change would be happening regardless. Mini-ice age that caused mass migration just a couple hundred years ago ring a bell? One a couple kilo years before that that pushed mankind aroun

The only problem is that Co2 levels in the jurrasic period would have been over 5 times greater than modern "skyrocketing" Co2 levels. If you look at the reconstructed georecord from ice coring we are

For the last four or five decades, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased (gasp!) at a rate of approximately 1.3 parts per MILLION volume (ppmv). Today, that concentration is slightly over 400 ppmv.

Posted Images

My understanding of this is that there is another twist to it as well. For IR radiation in the highly absorbed regions of the spectrum, the radiation eventually reaches space after a series of scattering processes causes by repeated absorption and re-emission. The more absorbing molecules there are in the atmosphere, the longer it takes for the radiation to get to an altitude from which it can then be radiated into space. There is thus  more heat trapped, ricocheting around, on its way out at any given moment and thus the heating effect is increased.      

Yes, that's an additional effect.  The widening of the bands is easier to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because YOU and your AlGorian friends . . .

 

Well, if we are making up random associations here -

 

You, and your denier friends like Willie Soon have already shown to be frauds, so that's easy.  (He has retired in disgrace after admitting he accepted over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to deny climate change.)

 

Follow the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spotty coverage: Climate models underestimate cooling effect of daily cloud cycle
Morgan Kelly, Princeton Environmental Institute
Jan. 10, 2018 10:32 a.m.

Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.

The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us.

“It’s important to get the right result for the right reason,” said corresponding author Amilcare Porporato, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the Princeton Environmental Institute. “These errors can trickle down into other changes, such as projecting fewer and weaker storms. We hope that our results are useful for improving how clouds are modeled, which would improve the calibration of climate models and make the results much more reliable.”

Porporato and first author Jun Yin, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, found that not accurately capturing the daily cloud cycle has models showing the sun bombarding Earth with an extra one or two watts of energy per square meter. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Age is estimated to produce an extra 3.7 watts of energy per square meter. “The error here is half of that, so in that sense it becomes substantial,” Porporato said.

Yin and Porporato undertook their study after attending a seminar on cloud coverage and climate sensitivity. “The speaker talked a lot about where the clouds are, but not when,” Yin said. “We thought the timing was just as important and we were surprised to find there were fewer studies on that.”

Clouds change from hour to hour and from day to day. Climate models do a good job of capturing the average cloud coverage, Yin said, but they miss important peaks in actual cloud coverage. These peaks can have a dramatic effect on daily conditions, such as in the early afternoon during the hottest part of the day.

“Climate scientists have the clouds, but they miss the timing,” Porporato said. “There’s a strong sensitivity between the daily cloud cycle and temperature. It’s like a person putting on a blanket at night or using a parasol during the day. If you miss that, it makes a huge difference.”

The researchers used both reanalysis data and satellite images from 1986-2005 to calculate the average diurnal cycles of clouds in each season worldwide. The reanalysis (above) shows (left to right) the mean (average), standard deviation (amplitude) and phase (timing) of global cloud coverage by season. The color scale indicates low (blue) to high (red) coverage, amplitude and timing. Most previous models suggest that clouds are thickest over land in the early morning, but the Princeton study showed that cloud coverage peaks more frequently in the afternoon.

The researchers used satellite images from 1986-2005 to calculate the average diurnal cycles of clouds in each season worldwide. Yin analyzed the cloud coverage at three-hour intervals, looking at more than 6,000 points on the globe measuring 175 miles by 175 miles each.

Yin and Porporato compared the averages they came up with to those from nine climate models used by climate scientists. The majority of models have the thickest coverage occurring in the morning over the land, rather than in the early afternoon when clouds shield the Earth from the sun’s most intense heat. “A small difference in timing can have a big radiative impact,” Yin said.

The researchers plan to explore the effect different types of clouds have on climate-model projections, as well as how cloud cycles influence the year-to-year variation of Earth’s temperature, especially in relation to extreme rainfall.

Gabriel Katul, professor of hydrology and micrometeorology at Duke University, said that “the significance is quite high” of accurately modeling the daily cloud cycle. Katul was not involved in the research but is familiar with it.

The cloud cycle can indicate deficiencies in the characterization of surface heating and atmospheric water vapor, both of which are necessary for cloud formation, he said. Both factors also govern how the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere — known as the atmospheric boundary layer — interacts with the planet’s surface.

“The modeling of boundary-layer growth and collapse is fraught with difficulties because it involves complex processes that must be overly simplified in climate models,” Katul said. “So, exploring the timing of cloud formation and cloud thickness is significant at the diurnal scale precisely because those timescales are the most relevant to boundary-layer dynamics and surface-atmosphere heat and water-vapor exchange.”

When it comes to clouds, climate models have typically focused on mechanisms, spatial areas and timescales — such as air pollution and microphysics, hundreds of square kilometers, and seasons, respectively — that are larger and more generalized, Katul said. “There are practical reasons why data-model comparisons were conducted in a manner that masked the diurnal variation in clouds,” he said. “Diurnal variation was somewhat masked by the fact that much of the climate-model performance was reported over longer-term and larger-scale averages.”

By capturing the timing and thickness of the daily cloud cycle on a global scale, however, Yin and Porporato have provided scientists with a tool for confirming if climate models aptly portray cloud formation and the interaction between clouds and the atmosphere.

“The global coverage and emphasis on both ‘timing’ and ‘amount’ are notable. As far as I am aware, this is the first study to explore this manifold of models in such a coherent way,” Katul said. “I am sure this type of work will offer new perspectives to improve the representation of clouds. I would not be surprised to see this paper highly cited in future IPCC [u.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports.”

The paper, “Diurnal cloud cycle biases in climate models,” was published online Dec. 22 by Nature Communications. The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (no. 58-6408-3-027); the National Science Foundation (grant nos. EAR-1331846, EAR-1316258 and EAR-1338694); and the Duke University Wireless Intelligent Sensor Networks (WISeNet) program (grant no. DGE-1068871).

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because YOU and your AlGorian friends have made statements does NOT by any means constitute "already refuted arguments."

Anything that does not advance your agenda, is not "simply wrong."  It is simply upsetting to you.

 

You pretend to know everything already, so learning is far beneath you.  

 

You cannot counter the profound concentration of atmospheric water vapor, relative to CO2, at ratios of 15,000 to 400, respectively.

You cannot counter the far broader absorption spectrum of water vapor relative to CO2, already provided.

You cannot counter the fact that organic decomposition of plant and animal matter far exceeds human CO2 output.

So you attack  the intelligence of those who deign to point out scientific facts.  How petty of you.  

On the contrary, Billvon and I have gone to some lengths in this thread to point out to you why it is not sensible to simply add up greenhouse contributions from CO2 and water. I pointed out they close off different wavelength windows for IR emission from the ground. Billvon pointed out that water amplifies the effect of CO2. And I have -just recently -  added the further information pointing out that as the concentrations of  absorbing gases increase, they cause more absorption and re-radiation within the atmosphere, delaying the path for radiation to escape to space and thus raising the temperature of the atmosphere further.   

 

 You have ignored all this and reverted to simply repeating the erroneous arguments you were advancing at the beginning. This is a demonstrable failure to accommodate new information - a failure to learn -  and is thus a clear sign of your determination to remain ignorant.

 

I have no idea what AIG stands for. I googled it and found an insurance company called American International Group. Is this what you are referring to? Why would I be a friend of an insurance company? 

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have ignored all this and reverted to simply repeating the erroneous arguments you were advancing at the beginning. This is a demonstrable failure to accommodate new information - a failure to learn -  and is thus a clear sign of your determination to remain ignorant.

That's a bit rich. Did you even read the article I pasted? Water vapour has an overall net cooling effect on the planet.

 

Volcanoes put out tons of greenhouse gasses, and they also have a cooling effect that vastly overpowers any heating from the greenhouse effect because the soot blocks more heat than it traps. We've been well below average in terms of volcanic activity for decades, which is one of the many natural factors that have been warming the Earth and falsely attributed to CO2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did kiss my mother with that mouth, just before she died.

 

And yes, the change is rapid compared to other global scale temperature changes. See for example the so-called mini ice age compared to what we are seeing now, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

Will that do "ya"?  

With the venom coming out of it, it's no wonder she died right after. ("Pity-me" card doesn't work on me, especially not after you've been a dick rather than dispassionate.)

 

See, the change is a mini-event by geo-scale. All of the hysteria pumped over that change relies on a leap of faith: "change is bad!" I don't deny that humanity is having SOME effect on the world, I do however find the proofs of it being unacceptable to be shoddy.

 

Every model has been revised, like all models should be. However the margin of error in those models is quite large, large enough that it's predictive value is not trustworthy. Since those predictions are what's being fear-mongered, I remain skeptical. If you find me a climatologist who says we know 100% what all the cause and effects are, I'll show you a liar and a cheat. (Kinda like a Scientologist...)

 

Geo-records: Various points in history where GHG emissions(and atmos content) were WAY higher than current, by natural events, and life-band was in full bloom. Prediction "we're gonna make earth uninhabitable" fearmonger is quite questionable.  Do you follow this point?

-"rate of change" of what? Temperature? GHG? Both? Why is it bad? "Life won't be able to adapt" is a vapid argument, we can show in lab life adapting to those extremes at tremendous rates. Even if it causes some areas to change biome types, others are just as likely to open up. When you consider the invasive species epidemics already in full bore and the cross-transport of the "small modern world" there is also plenty of pre-adapted life to go around. "People will have to move" They already do, and have for not only recorded history but just by dispersion we can shew in pre-record history too. This is a false-alarm if I've ever seen one.

 

Some eco stuff I won't argue. Free radicals in the food chain are bad. Heavy metals in same, bad. Radio isotopes in same, bad. Controls for those are not in contention IMHO. More complete burns of hydrocarbons is definitely better, free radical containment would be great. However...

 

The water and COn from those burns really shouldn't be screamed about and tax-trade-ponzi-schemed on a political level when the science for it is infantile at best. It is quite literally just another oligarch money-grab any way you look at it. It's effectively the same Tea-Tax that lit the powder keg in the Americas dressed up in invisible clothes, if you bother to read your history and know your fables. The carbon-king is naked, shall we set fire to his boats?

Edited by GAHD
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a yawner.  One hundred fifty-one views and you're bragging about how popular it is?

35k views. I'm not bragging about anything, it's a martial arts channel and that's my most popular video. I haven't done any in ages, hopefully I'll start uploading regularly including tutorials before the end of the year.

 

You are clearly demonstrating how hateful and bitter you are.  No doubt you are a Leftist.

That's rich. You two are as bad as each other. Dosy and clueless (that's you) and smug without a reason, even when shown to be wrong (that's him).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit rich. Did you even read the article I pasted? Water vapour has an overall net cooling effect on the planet.

 

Not when it's on the night side.  Next time you are in the desert see if it's colder at night when there are clouds vs. a wide open sky.

 

Now, if there are more daytime clouds than nighttime clouds you could claim that it has a cooling effect. Is that the case?  Not so far.  Will it be the case in the future?  Perhaps.  Which is why prediction isn't always 100% accurate.

Volcanoes put out tons of greenhouse gasses,

 

Yep.  And we put out megatons.

and they also have a cooling effect that vastly overpowers any heating from the greenhouse effect because the soot blocks more heat than it traps. We've been well below average in terms of volcanic activity for decades, which is one of the many natural factors that have been warming the Earth and falsely attributed to CO2.

 

 

Now volcanic activity is DECREASING and it's causing climate change?

 

Honestly at this point it's like you are just throwing random denials at the wall to see what sticks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit rich. Did you even read the article I pasted? Water vapour has an overall net cooling effect on the planet.

Not when it's on the night side.  Next time you are in the desert see if it's colder at night when there are clouds vs. a wide open sky.

 

Now, if there are more daytime clouds than nighttime clouds you could claim that it has a cooling effect. Is that the case?  Not so far.  Will it be the case in the future?  Perhaps.  Which is why prediction isn't always 100% accurate.

So you're saying that the researchers are wrong then? Just to be clear, logically you must be saying that the new data showing that the cooling effect of water vapour in the atmosphere had been greatly underestimated now means that there's no cooling effect?

 

So your position must now be that before the new finding there was thought to be an overall warming effect of cloud cover. This isn't true. They thought is was more or less neutral before (and that was your position as well based on the outdated information) but they've now realised that water vapour has an overall cooling effect.

 

"The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur."

 

Volcanoes put out tons of greenhouse gasses...

Yep.  And we put out megatons.

Now volcanic activity is DECREASING and it's causing climate change?

Historically volcanoes put out more green house gasses on average than we are currently. Volcanic activity is low at the moment (probably on a cycle and probably linked to the solar cycle) and this has had a heating effect on the planet because volcano emissions (including all those green house gasses) have a major cooling effect.

 

This isn't a contentious issue, look it up. Volcanoes have a undisputed (and profound at times of particularly high volcanic activity) cooling effect and volcanic activity at the moment is well below the average. This is conveniently (along with other things) never factored in.

 

Honestly at this point it's like you are just throwing random denials at the wall to see what sticks.

Honestly? Somebody who tries to debate in the way you have should never even be thinking about that word and certainly shouldn't have the nerve to actually use it. Have you no shame?

 

It's hardly my fault that there's so god damn many examples showing that the hysteria surrounding climate change is utter bullshit.

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not when it's on the night side.  Next time you are in the desert see if it's colder at night when there are clouds vs. a wide open sky.

 

Now, if there are more daytime clouds than nighttime clouds you could claim that it has a cooling effect. Is that the case?  Not so far.  Will it be the case in the future?  Perhaps.  Which is why prediction isn't always 100% accurate.

Yep.  And we put out megatons.

Now volcanic activity is DECREASING and it's causing climate change?

 

Honestly at this point it's like you are just throwing random denials at the wall to see what sticks.

Actually, why are clouds being discussed, when the issue is the IR absorption and re-emission of water vapour?  

 

I would have thought that scattering by the condensed water droplets in clouds would be a separate issue, wouldn't it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, why are clouds being discussed, when the issue is the IR absorption and re-emission of water vapour

Just because it's one of those natural balancing processes mentioned earlier. More heat means more evaporation means more cloud cover and clouds have a net cooling effect so it's a negative feedback making further warming harder to do the warmer it gets and it makes a mockery of the supposed 'tipping point' that's meant to coming. Any tipping point will be in a direction of rapid cooling because that's what's next in the cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So

 

the hysteria surrounding climate change is utter bullshit.

 

There could not be scores of books, and hundreds of papers, and tens of thousands of scientists pointing out the climate change fraud if it were the "fact, fact, fact" the raving Left claims.

 

I cropped most of your comments, particularly you taking of God's name in vain.   Profanity is inappropriate, Friend.

It weakens your points, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There could not be scores of books, and hundreds of papers, and tens of thousands of scientists pointing out the climate change fraud if it were the "fact, fact, fact" the raving Left claims.

Well they're no worse than the batshit crazy raving claims of the right. I hate being on your side (very loosely speaking) on this, it makes me feel very dirty.

 

There's far more (foundationless) papers saying that global warming is practically all CO2 driven so that's not a valid point. You can't pick and choose which papers strengthen your case and which don't based only one your own bias. You have to demonstrate why they're not valid, like blatantly ignoring other warming factors for example.

 

I cropped most of your comments, particularly you taking of God's name in vain.   Profanity is inappropriate, Friend.

It weakens your points, in my opinion.

My profanities in no way weaken or have any other effect on the validity of any points I make, that's ridiculous.

 

As for taking the god's name in vain, I don't believe in stupid fairly tales. Hence my stance on most of the 'science' of climate change, the big bang creationism myth, dark matter and energy and the prospect of Manchester United ever finishing in the top four again within my lifetime. The last one's slightly more likely but much more horrific. :)

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that the researchers are wrong then? Just to be clear, logically you must be saying that the new data showing that the cooling effect of water vapour in the atmosphere had been greatly underestimated now means that there's no cooling effect?

No.  I am saying there is a warming AND cooling effect due to water vapor.  Warming due to its reflection of IR radiation; cooling due to higher albedo of clouds.

 

So your position must now be that before the new finding there was thought to be an overall warming effect of cloud cover. This isn't true. They thought is was more or less neutral before (and that was your position as well based on the outdated information) but they've now realised that water vapour has an overall cooling effect.

Nope.  But feel free to keep guessing.

 

 

Historically volcanoes put out more green house gasses on average than we are currently. Volcanic activity is low at the moment (probably on a cycle and probably linked to the solar cycle) and this has had a heating effect on the planet because volcano emissions (including all those green house gasses) have a major cooling effect.

 

Volcanic activity is pretty average right now.  If anything, over the past 100 years (the timescale of climate change) it has increased.

 

http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/the-human-impact-of-volcanoes-a-historical-review-of-events-1900-2009-and-systematic-literature-review/

 

This isn't a contentious issue, look it up. Volcanoes have a undisputed (and profound at times of particularly high volcanic activity) cooling effect and volcanic activity at the moment is well below the average. This is conveniently (along with other things) never factored in.

 

 

See above.

 

 

Honestly? Somebody who tries to debate in the way you have should never even be thinking about that word and certainly shouldn't have the nerve to actually use it. Have you no shame? It's hardly my fault that there's so god damn many examples showing that the hysteria surrounding climate change is utter bullshit.

 

It's funny how so many climate change denier arguments end with the denier screaming and cursing when their theories don't hold together in the face of facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...