Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Correction to Climate Models - Clouds

slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 9:58:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Very interesting article. It suggests that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from today's levels will result in avg 5 degree C rise in temp by 2100. This is due to an adjustment of less cloud cover as CO2 rises, which they say fits real world observations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

One thing that is not discussed much by warming skeptics is exactly how much CO2 can get into the atmosphere before having an effect on climate? Clearly if our atmosphere was 100% CO2 there would be some sort of impact. From a skeptic viewpoint exactly how much CO2 concentration can there be before we have an impact?

Today we are around 400 ppm. 1960 was about 315 ppm.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 10:49:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 9:58:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
Very interesting article. It suggests that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from today's levels will result in avg 5 degree C rise in temp by 2100. This is due to an adjustment of less cloud cover as CO2 rises, which they say fits real world observations.

Well, at least they're getting smart enough to pick dates after they're dead, so it can't harm their career later on when the planet has once again ignored their nonsense.
This space for rent.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 10:57:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 10:49:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:58:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
Very interesting article. It suggests that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from today's levels will result in avg 5 degree C rise in temp by 2100. This is due to an adjustment of less cloud cover as CO2 rises, which they say fits real world observations.

Well, at least they're getting smart enough to pick dates after they're dead, so it can't harm their career later on when the planet has once again ignored their nonsense.

Ignored?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 9:49:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Again, this issue has a few holes in it.

(1) The authors acknowledge that there was a decrease in cloud cover in the 20th century, when CO2 ppm increased by around 100.

(2) The study assumes that the cloud feedback mechanism is negative. Chernykh et al. 2001 shows that clouds generally moderate the earths temperature in warming cycles, indicating a cooling effect. This study cited, however, claims that there is a positive feedback. Simo and Pedros-Alio 1999 argued that increased CO2 will cause a negative feedback look due to clouds.

I am not saying the study is wrong--I find it very interesting--but I do think that more research needs to prove that clouds are a positive feedback rather than a positive one.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 10:07:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 9:49:07 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Again, this issue has a few holes in it.

(1) The authors acknowledge that there was a decrease in cloud cover in the 20th century, when CO2 ppm increased by around 100.

(2) The study assumes that the cloud feedback mechanism is negative. Chernykh et al. 2001 shows that clouds generally moderate the earths temperature in warming cycles, indicating a cooling effect. This study cited, however, claims that there is a positive feedback. Simo and Pedros-Alio 1999 argued that increased CO2 will cause a negative feedback look due to clouds.

I am not saying the study is wrong--I find it very interesting--but I do think that more research needs to prove that clouds are a positive feedback rather than a positive one.

Isn't that what this study is saying. Higher temps = less cloud coverage = less reflected radiation back into space = more radiation absorbed by earth = more warming? That would be consistent with Chernykh that cloud coverage is good.

The mechanism they cite for reducing cloud coverage is related to the uptake of moisture. They describe uptakes that don't rise a few kilometers rather than 15 km uptakes. This then pulls moisture from the high level clouds reducing the amount of cloud coverage.

That mechanism is what they studied to determine there would be less cloud formation than what previous models predicted thus changing from 1.5 degree rise to 5 degrees.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 10:14:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 10:07:25 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 9:49:07 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Again, this issue has a few holes in it.

(1) The authors acknowledge that there was a decrease in cloud cover in the 20th century, when CO2 ppm increased by around 100.

(2) The study assumes that the cloud feedback mechanism is negative. Chernykh et al. 2001 shows that clouds generally moderate the earths temperature in warming cycles, indicating a cooling effect. This study cited, however, claims that there is a positive feedback. Simo and Pedros-Alio 1999 argued that increased CO2 will cause a negative feedback look due to clouds.

I am not saying the study is wrong--I find it very interesting--but I do think that more research needs to prove that clouds are a positive feedback rather than a positive one.

Isn't that what this study is saying. Higher temps = less cloud coverage = less reflected radiation back into space = more radiation absorbed by earth = more warming? That would be consistent with Chernykh that cloud coverage is good.

The mechanism they cite for reducing cloud coverage is related to the uptake of moisture. They describe uptakes that don't rise a few kilometers rather than 15 km uptakes. This then pulls moisture from the high level clouds reducing the amount of cloud coverage.

That mechanism is what they studied to determine there would be less cloud formation than what previous models predicted thus changing from 1.5 degree rise to 5 degrees.

Yes, but all previous alarmist literature claimed that CO2 increased cloud cover and that it was a positive feedback mechanism. There has been a reversal with more clouds since 2000, and if anything, this puts some doubt on the hypothesis.

It's interesting nonetheless.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 10:29:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 10:14:32 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/3/2014 10:07:25 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/3/2014 9:49:07 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Again, this issue has a few holes in it.

(1) The authors acknowledge that there was a decrease in cloud cover in the 20th century, when CO2 ppm increased by around 100.

(2) The study assumes that the cloud feedback mechanism is negative. Chernykh et al. 2001 shows that clouds generally moderate the earths temperature in warming cycles, indicating a cooling effect. This study cited, however, claims that there is a positive feedback. Simo and Pedros-Alio 1999 argued that increased CO2 will cause a negative feedback look due to clouds.

I am not saying the study is wrong--I find it very interesting--but I do think that more research needs to prove that clouds are a positive feedback rather than a positive one.

Isn't that what this study is saying. Higher temps = less cloud coverage = less reflected radiation back into space = more radiation absorbed by earth = more warming? That would be consistent with Chernykh that cloud coverage is good.

The mechanism they cite for reducing cloud coverage is related to the uptake of moisture. They describe uptakes that don't rise a few kilometers rather than 15 km uptakes. This then pulls moisture from the high level clouds reducing the amount of cloud coverage.

That mechanism is what they studied to determine there would be less cloud formation than what previous models predicted thus changing from 1.5 degree rise to 5 degrees.


Yes, but all previous alarmist literature claimed that CO2 increased cloud cover and that it was a positive feedback mechanism. There has been a reversal with more clouds since 2000, and if anything, this puts some doubt on the hypothesis.

It's interesting nonetheless.

http://wattsupwiththat.com...

This study shows that cloud coverage has been decreasing since 1971 (the start of the study) It appears that there is enough variability that a few year uptrend does not break the overall declining trend. North and South America even have a noticeable down trend in cloud coverage since 2000.

If the alarmists were saying rising temps would create more clouds (a positive cooling factor) they are really going to be alarmist when they correct themselves and say it creates less clouds.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 11:25:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 10:49:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:58:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
Very interesting article. It suggests that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from today's levels will result in avg 5 degree C rise in temp by 2100. This is due to an adjustment of less cloud cover as CO2 rises, which they say fits real world observations.

Well, at least they're getting smart enough to pick dates after they're dead, so it can't harm their career later on when the planet has once again ignored their nonsense.

I'm all for you rejecting observable evidence and potential reality using statements of opinions asserted as fact when all that is risk is making the USA the new middle east with a significant brain drain of natural science expertise to Europe (your loss is our gain).

But when you do it in a way that, if you are wrong; which thus far the evidence suggests you are; you could potentially see the destruction of the human race, that's when it defies any form of rational belief.

This is like a valid version of pascal wager with demonstrable physical implications and no multiple-choice decision.

If we're right, we are saving the planet; if not we all die.

Even worse, and not only that even if you are right, you will STILL have to do everything that climate change proponents are suggesting we do ANYWAY when fossile fuels really start running short; with even worse economic and social cost than even the most significant shifts being suggested today.

Your position fails scientifically and logically in every way.

Oh, and FYI the planet is probably going to be fine. I'm with George Carlin; the planet isn't going anywhere....... we may be.... but not the planet.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 1:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 11:25:12 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/2/2014 10:49:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:58:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
Very interesting article. It suggests that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from today's levels will result in avg 5 degree C rise in temp by 2100. This is due to an adjustment of less cloud cover as CO2 rises, which they say fits real world observations.

Well, at least they're getting smart enough to pick dates after they're dead, so it can't harm their career later on when the planet has once again ignored their nonsense.

I'm all for you rejecting observable evidence

Ah, no, I'm not rejecting any observable evidence, just oversimplification of weather cycles.

and potential reality using statements of opinions asserted as fact when all that is risk is making the USA the new middle east with a significant brain drain of natural science expertise to Europe (your loss is our gain).


Awww, is that your problem, a little european insecurity syndrome? I think you better look east, those are the guys getting to the moon while the west wastes time on pseudo science like this.

But when you do it in a way that, if you are wrong; which thus far the evidence suggests you are; you could potentially see the destruction of the human race, that's when it defies any form of rational belief.


Yeah, that's the real lure of 'climate change', isn't it? It's the ultimate justification for power. "You must listen to us or we'll all die!"


If we're right, we are saving the planet; if not we all die.


No, if you're right, you're publishing papers, not saving the planet.

Even worse, and not only that even if you are right, you will STILL have to do everything that climate change proponents are suggesting we do ANYWAY when fossile fuels really start running short; with even worse economic and social cost than even the most significant shifts being suggested today.


So what's your worry, then? If earth has survived for a billion years or so we should be able to wait another 100 years til China gets done becoming the new superpower.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 2:11:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 1:25:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/3/2014 11:25:12 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/2/2014 10:49:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/2/2014 9:58:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
Very interesting article. It suggests that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from today's levels will result in avg 5 degree C rise in temp by 2100. This is due to an adjustment of less cloud cover as CO2 rises, which they say fits real world observations.

Well, at least they're getting smart enough to pick dates after they're dead, so it can't harm their career later on when the planet has once again ignored their nonsense.

I'm all for you rejecting observable evidence

Ah, no, I'm not rejecting any observable evidence, just oversimplification of weather cycles.

Ah yes; the absurd presentation of the opposing argument is testament to how high a regard you hold them.

and potential reality using statements of opinions asserted as fact when all that is risk is making the USA the new middle east with a significant brain drain of natural science expertise to Europe (your loss is our gain).


Awww, is that your problem, a little european insecurity syndrome? I think you better look east, those are the guys getting to the moon while the west wastes time on pseudo science like this.

Actually, it's more of a superiority complex against the tapesty of north american theocratic conservative nuts who favour rejecting reality and engaging in weird Apopheniac conspiracy theories. Of which you seem to be but a thread!

But when you do it in a way that, if you are wrong; which thus far the evidence suggests you are; you could potentially see the destruction of the human race, that's when it defies any form of rational belief.


Yeah, that's the real lure of 'climate change', isn't it? It's the ultimate justification for power. "You must listen to us or we'll all die!"

No, that's actually religion; and the primary difference is that Science doesn't ask for your wallet in return for no results whatsoever.

The point is that there is a burden of evidence that suggest something big is happening with CO2, usage in the world; and to be honest, it's probably not the smartest of idea's to try and keep pumping 8 billion tonnes of the stuff into the atomsphere.

I dunno, it's just me...

And science...

And the evidence...


If we're right, we are saving the planet; if not we all die.


No, if you're right, you're publishing papers, not saving the planet.

Actually significant research that drives public awareness and political will to invest in more in non-polluting energy alternatives both established and research. But nice try ;)

Even worse, and not only that even if you are right, you will STILL have to do everything that climate change proponents are suggesting we do ANYWAY when fossile fuels really start running short; with even worse economic and social cost than even the most significant shifts being suggested today.


So what's your worry, then? If earth has survived for a billion years or so we should be able to wait another 100 years til China gets done becoming the new superpower.

This doesn't seem to follow at all, but I don't expect anything less: as I spelled out.

Denial is probably only going to buy you a few decades before you need to do all the stuff that is being suggesting anyway. I find your incredulity fairly hilarious.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:48:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:11:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Denial is probably only going to buy you a few decades before you need to do all the stuff that is being suggesting anyway. I find your incredulity fairly hilarious.

Yeah, I'm in my 50s and I've heard "few decades" for a few decades now. You'll be my age and a little wiser in a few decades. You'll eat butter and drink a beer and annoy the heck out of the eager young pups who are telling you the latest pop science bs. You gotta pay your dues and earn respect, kiddo, and one way to earn respect is by getting your predictions right, which the greens have pretty consistently failed to do.

We have a boat full of global warming nuts trapped in ice as we speak. And people say there is no God, or that he doesn't have a sense of humor.
This space for rent.