Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

The source you post does not state that it has an overall cooling effect.  Your source stated that the cloud formation models they use have more error than they expected. They did NOT show clouds have an overall cooling effect.  From the source you posted: "consistent biases in DCC between present and future climates give rise to similar TOA reference irradiance, so that the model tuning made for current climate conditions still remains largely effective for the global mean temperature projections. "  In other words, they do not affect current predictions for temperature increases.  They do, however, "have the potential to increase the uncertainty of climate projections."

 

Now, you can argue with that if you like.  However, you will then be arguing against your own source.

Stop dishonestly cherry picking in an attempt to justify your bullshit. It also says:

 

"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."

 

If the overall warming and cooling effect of cloud cover were thought to basically balance each other before the new findings (they were and you even said that yourself) then if "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" then cloud cover obviously has an overall net cooling effect.

 

Yep.  About the level of rationality you are capable of, sadly.

Oh I'm the one that's arguing dishonestly and dishonourably. :) Like I said, totally full of ****!

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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.

 

 

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. :)

 

You talk like a homosexual.  "feel very dirty"

 

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com

 

Read and learn, "dirty" one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Compare this with atmospheric water vapor which is roughly 15,000 ppmv.

 

Not only is water vapor THE dominant greenhouse gas from a quantitative point of view, but qualitatively, water vapor absorbs more light energy than carbon dioxide, ceteris paribus.

 

To counter this science that so infuriates climate change proponents,  they have created a lexicon of confusion.  

 

"Oh water vapor falls out as rain but carbon dioxide - whoa, that stays up there for decades."

 

Irrelevant.  A molecule is a molecule, old or new.

 

"Forcing!"

 

Oh please.  Stop it.

"

"Oh water vapor falls out as rain but carbon dioxide - whoa, that stays up there for decades.""

 

And feeds the treees.  :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"

"Oh water vapor falls out as rain but carbon dioxide - whoa, that stays up there for decades.""

 

And feeds the treees.  :-)

 

 

Water vapor is a gas.  Rain falls, water vapor does not.

Evaporation constantly replenishes the 1.5% water vapor in the atmosphere. Constantly.

 

How long any molecule has been extant is quite irrelevant.  They all work the same if they just arrived, or have been in the atmosphere for 1000 years.

Science is hard.    Try thinking before you posit something as inane as the foregoing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Water vapor is a gas.  Rain falls, water vapor does not.

Evaporation constantly replenishes the 1.5% water vapor in the atmosphere. Constantly.

 

How long any molecule has been extant is quite irrelevant.  They all work the same if they just arrived, or have been in the atmosphere for 1000 years.

Science is hard.    Try thinking before you posit something as inane as the foregoing.

I was talking about the carbon dioxide, not the water vapor.

 

P. S.  Aha!  I think I see the problem.  You copied a quote of a previous post and my response to it.  Please back up one from that and you'll see that you copied two different posters.

 

Am I right?

Edited by hazelm
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about the carbon dioxide, not the water vapor.

 

P. S.  Aha!  I think I see the problem.  You copied a quote of a previous post and my response to it.  Please back up one from that and you'll see that you copied two different posters.

 

Am I right?

 

No you are not right.  You were talking about BOTH water vapor and carbon dioxide.  The former "falls out as rain."   You are wrong in that claim for at least two reasons.

1.  Water vapor doesn't "fall out as rain."

2.  It's quite irrelevant since it is being continuously replaced.

 

People desperate to uphold the lies and exaggeration of climate change priests say anything and call it science, even when it makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk like a homosexual.  "feel very dirty"

What? You think homosexuals are dirty and anyone who feels dirty must be homosexual? Wow.

 

Your bullshit religious fairytale has no more going for it than the flying spaghetti monster. Less in fact because it's completely ignorant of it's own absurdity.

 

Read and learn, "dirty" one.

It's only engaging with people as filthy as you that makes me feel dirty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuals are far more violent and prone to beat or murder than normal men.

Homosexuals have a far higher incidence of depression and suicide than normal men.

Homosexuals have a far higher incidence of molesting children than normal men.

Homosexuals militantly parade down San Francisco streets, practically naked, mocking and ridiculing

the Catholic Church in particular, and "straights" in general.

 

So to you, a flaming Leftist, no there is "nothing to be in any way ashamed of."  You defend such practices and no doubt

murdering innocent, unborn babies as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuals are far more violent and prone to beat or murder than normal men.

Homosexuals have a far higher incidence of depression and suicide than normal men.

Homosexuals have a far higher incidence of molesting children than normal men.

Homosexuals militantly parade down San Francisco streets, practically naked, mocking and ridiculing

the Catholic Church in particular, and "straights" in general.

 

So to you, a flaming Leftist, no there is "nothing to be in any way ashamed of."  You defend such practices and no doubt

murdering innocent, unborn babies as well.

:lol: The catholic church actually is full of homosexual pedeophiles. It deserves far worse than simply being mocked. All of Christianity has a ****-ton to answer for but none more than that evil institutionalised child molesting freak show.

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

:lol: The catholic church actually is full of homosexual pedeophiles. It deserves far worse than simply being mocked. All of Christianity has a ****-ton to answer for but none more than that evil institutionalised child molesting freak show.

Listen carefully, emotionally overwrought Leftist.
You CAN'T be a male, molesting little boys, UNLESS YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL, by definition.
So if there were no homosexuals, there would be zero male pedophilia.  

All you Leftists have everything to answer for your ignorant, reprehensible, emotional "freak show."

 
More facts, to make you spin and  lie some more:
 
“The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” U.S. Department of Education report, 2002 
______________________________
 
Federal Report Says Schools Fail to Protect Students From Sexual Abuse by Personnel
 
_____________________________
 
Now I'm done with you.  You are a complete waste of time. You never make a remark without subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge.
Link to post
Share on other sites

“The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” U.S. Department of Education report, 2002

Well obviously, there's a crap-ton more kids exposed to teachers than to priests. Proportionally priests are far more dangerous to children than teachers, anyone else for that matter. That's hardly surprising really given the evil bullshit they believe in and preach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Little touch-base with those who care one way or another:

....

Some fun points here.

 

That video is fairly off-topic, and should have its own title as a topic, shouldn't it?  (hint, hint, hint)

 

While I haven't watched your link, I’m familiar with a 'controversy' over her comments as a keynote speaker at an Alberta Teachers' Association meeting.

Is that what your link is about?

 

For instance, the Calgary Herald quoted Berman in an article entitled, "Tzeporah Berman better get her facts straight before she talks to ATA."

 

"Berman says the demand for oil 'is softening,' and that’s why Canada doesn’t need to build any more pipelines…."

 

The article then counters by explaining: 

"Except oil consumption is not softening at all. According to Statista, in 2010, world crude consumption was 86.4 million barrels per day. In 2017 it was 97.8 million bpd. In 2018, it is expected to increase to approximately 99 million bpd."

 

So, the previous eight years of consumption averaged to ~1.4 million bpd, while the current year of consumption is estimated at ~1.2 million bpd. 

Does that sound like "not softening at all" to you? 

Maybe the 'news' should check the facts they choose to use too.

 

Maybe somebody who liked the video could provide some quotes, or explanations about any points from the video, to indicate what it's getting at here

especially for those who can't easily watch videos. 

(hint, hint, hint)

 

But more 'on topic' is a point about water vapor.  I learned, in a 2011 climate science (ats150) class, that we should also recall:

A warmer world, on average, holds more water vapor.  Amazingly, it's about 7% more water vapor per each 1 degree C increase.

That's almost 4% more water vapor, per degree F of 'warming,' globally.  That's a lot of extra latent heat (energy) hanging around!

 

It's the heat and the humidity! 

:innocent: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That video is fairly off-topic, and should have its own title as a topic, shouldn't it?  (hint, hint, hint)

 

While I haven't watched your link, I’m familiar with a 'controversy' over her comments as a keynote speaker at an Alberta Teachers' Association meeting.

Is that what your link is about?

 

For instance, the Calgary Herald quoted Berman in an article entitled, "Tzeporah Berman better get her facts straight before she talks to ATA."

 

"Berman says the demand for oil 'is softening,' and that’s why Canada doesn’t need to build any more pipelines…."

 

The article then counters by explaining: 

"Except oil consumption is not softening at all. According to Statista, in 2010, world crude consumption was 86.4 million barrels per day. In 2017 it was 97.8 million bpd. In 2018, it is expected to increase to approximately 99 million bpd."

 

So, the previous eight years of consumption averaged to ~1.4 million bpd, while the current year of consumption is estimated at ~1.2 million bpd. 

Does that sound like "not softening at all" to you? 

Maybe the 'news' should check the facts they choose to use too.

 

Maybe somebody who liked the video could provide some quotes, or explanations about any points from the video, to indicate what it's getting at here

especially for those who can't easily watch videos. 

(hint, hint, hint)

 

But more 'on topic' is a point about water vapor.  I learned, in a 2011 climate science (ats150) class, that we should also recall:

A warmer world, on average, holds more water vapor.  Amazingly, it's about 7% more water vapor per each 1 degree C increase.

That's almost 4% more water vapor, per degree F of 'warming,' globally.  That's a lot of extra latent heat (energy) hanging around!

 

It's the heat and the humidity! 

:innocent: 

Interesting contribution. I can certainly see how the presence of more water vapour in the atmosphere would increase the heat trapping effect and how the resulting higher temperature would in turn lead to more water vapour in the atmosphere. The obvious question, then, is what prevents this process from leading to a runaway greenhouse effect today. What are the compensating processes that have, historically, allowed equilibrium to be maintained?  

 

I presume that a higher temperature in principle increases the amount of IR radiation from the Earth into space, from cloud tops and whatever windows in the IR are not blocked by water vapour or other greenhouse gas absorption bands. I can only presume that, at least up to now, this increases enough to restore an equilibrium between radiation received and radiation emitted. 

 

If so, then I would imagine the problem with increases in other greenhouse gases may be that these remaining windows for radiating heat become progressively blocked, leading to an increase in temperature before enough radiation is once more emitted, via the remaining channels, to restore equilibrium again.

 

Would that be your understanding of how these things are related? 

 

I feel it is worth clarifying this point, as the sceptics are otherwise entitled to ask why, if this water vapour +ve feedback loop exists, the Earth did not suffer a runaway greenhouse effect aeons ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the reconstructed geo-records are to be believed, Earth's thermal saturation points arn't exactly "closed off" by any of the gass bands. Really hard for me to hold faith that a runaway feedback loop CAN happen. Something about the Ideal Gas Laws and Solubility vs Heat and Pressure I'm too lazy to dredge up from the depths of my brain for an actual example differential.

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...