EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:46 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
How does that prove the accuracy of the models used exactly?


It is within the error margin.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:20 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Hardly, as the difference between "an effect" and "THE major effect" is huge.


Given the study found the effects of the CR on the formation of aerosols to be insufficient to explain the connection you claim is supported.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressRel ... 5.11E.html


So an increase in the diurnal temperature during Forbush Decreases, which indicates a clear Cloud influence on climate, or the fact that there is a lag in the Global aerosoles right after the Forbush Decrease does not indicate a major GCR effect on Cloud Cover?

Kirkby et. al 2011 found that there was a "significant" influence of Cosmic Rays on aerosol production, and that vapours previously thought that could contribute to aerosol production were not that important for aerosol production.

Quote:
We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds.


Correct, since Kirkby has not been supported by any other research and the CERN data found opposite effects, there is no more evidence of a major GCR effect on cloud cover than not. It is still just as likely there is some other influence that affects both or of one affecting the other. Just like the paper showing the creation of cold fusion was not taken as scientific certainty until there was independent verification by other researchers. When it was not repeatable the science moved on just as it will do if there is no independent support for Kirkby.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:28 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
There are many facts that back the scientific theory of GHGs having driven the climate over the last 150 years and moreso in the last few decades.


Now this is simply not correct. Even Pro AGW scientists and their studies, like Raymond S. Bradley et. al, found that since 1860 that the Solar Forcing caused half of the warming seen since 1860. They state that the rest of the warming could have been caused by many different things. GHGs most certainly did not "drive" temperatures over the past 150 years. That was the sun, and even Pro-AGW scientists agree. Where the disagreement starts to take place is in the late-20th Century, where Pro AGW scientists claim that this is where the GHG forcing overwhelmed natural factors, but skeptical scientists disagree.


It is a correct statement. The fact there is natural variation in climate does not preclude the human impact. No rational person has ever claimed all of the warming has to be attributed to human action in order for there to be a human factor. The GHGs could have driven the climate to the point of warming being twice that of the natural variation according to that statement. and the feedbacks to the GHGs would be included in the driving aspect.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Your claim would be correct ONLY if there was no change in temperature prior to 1860.

There is a fringe group in the experts in the fields of climatology. The "scientists" in general might have a higher percentage, but those without expertise in the field cannot be given the same credibility as the true experts. You can use the Oregon Petition-ish references all you like, but the facts are against you in saying there is not a fringe group of experts which disagree.


Well yes, there was warming before 1860, and the study attributed most of the rise in temperature before 1860 to solar variations, with half of the warming from 1860-present to Solar Activity.


So your premise would not be accurate in claiming there has been no human impact from the mis-1800s onward.

Quote:
And I agree that if most of the Global Warming was caused be humans, then action would need to be taken.


That is nice of you, but is shows a lack of understanding of impacts and the problems with tipping points that cause concerns for the rest of us.

Quote:
But this is not the case at all, as I explained earlier. CO2 is like a fly in a football stadium, with Clouds being all of the people inside the football stadium, and Ozone Depletion being the football players. CO2 is not an important player at all in the Global Climate System.


That is your hypothesis, but that does not have very much support with the experts in the field. Those who have the expertise in the field have to be convinced by evidence not political hopes.

Quote:
I would agree that most of the government funded scientists probably agree that Global Warming is mostly man made. However, I find that most meteorologists and particle physicists are skeptical about AGW, with most retired scientists being skeptical as well.


Since meteorologists are not climatologists it really does not carry much weight in the discussion. As for the partical physicists, I think you are over estimating the support without supporting evidence.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
How does that prove the accuracy of the models used exactly?


It is within the error margin.


What error margin? There was a estimated range, which is not an error margin. The estimate of a model compared to another model may agree within a range, but that still does not indicate accuracy of either model. It does indicate they agree to an extent, but that is all. Just as all of the models used to predict the path of hurricanes may have some level of agreement, but the path of the hurricane may not follow either model's path.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:58 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It is a correct statement. The fact there is natural variation in climate does not preclude the human impact. No rational person has ever claimed all of the warming has to be attributed to human action in order for there to be a human factor. The GHGs could have driven the climate to the point of warming being twice that of the natural variation according to that statement. and the feedbacks to the GHGs would be included in the driving aspect.


Yes, there is a human impact, as there is an impact by a fly in a football field. The human impact is so small and albedo changes have dominanted the recent warming, as I explain in my earlier post here, as well as basic evidence that goes very much against the positive feedback hypothesis you are refering to:

There is so much evidence that Clouds have completely overwhelmed the CO2 effect in the past, and are currently doing so. Let's start off with the basics, which is to figure out what is the dominant driver of the Climate System. Is it Anthropogenic CO2 or is it a natural cycle? To begin to determine this, we have to look at the equator for the monthly OLR that is escaping Earth's atmosphere. This is where we can look at OLR changes with the most accuracy, since the Tropics do not experience as much seasonal variation or albedo change as the NH or SH do, so to get rid of all of this noise that might influence the average OLR at the TOA we look at the Tropics.

Image

The Climate Models have predicted a "hot spot" for CO2 doubling to appear by the Tropics. This is because of the hypothesized positive water vapour and cloud feedback at the Tropics. However, none of this has been observed at all. In fact, we observe an increase in OLR at the Tropics, which could validate Lindzen, Hou, and Chou's hypothesis which is known as the "Iris effect." It bascially states that as the planet warms, Cirrus clouds will decrease, which would allow for more OLR to reach the TOA, and produce a negative feedback on Earth's Climate. Two new peer reviewed papers document strong negative feedback from Cloud Cover. (SOURCE) (SOURCE)

Quoting respectably from the papers:

Quote:
We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.


Quote:
The CAM-SP shows strongly negative net cloud feedback in both the tropics and in the extratropics, resulting in a global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W m-2), at the low end of traditional AGCMs (e.g. Cess et al. 1996), but in accord with an analysis of 30- day SST/SST+2K climatologies from a global aquaplanet CRM run on the Earth Simulator (Miura et al. 2005). The conventional AGCMs differ greatly from each other but all have less negative net cloud forcings and correspondingly larger climate sensitivities than the
superparameterization. The coarse horizontal and vertical resolution of CAM3-SP means that it highly under-resolves the turbulent circulations that produce boundary layer clouds. Thus, one should interpret its predictions with caution. With this caveat, cloud feedbacks are arguably more naturally simulated by superparameterization than in conventional AGCMs [conventional climate models], suggesting a compelling need to better understand the differences between the results from these two approaches.



Image

The OLR has increased roughly 4.5 w/m^2 per decade on average, since 1979. (SOURCE) This equates to roughly a 11-13 w/m^2 increase in OLR over this timeframe. It also indicates that something else other than CO2 is adding Energy to Earth's Energy Budget, since this roughly 10X CO2's RF since 1790.

The increase in OLR at the Tropics indicates that Cloud Cover may be most of the reason that OLR has increased by the Tropics, since when Clouds are subtracted from the Global Energy Flows, you get more Incoming Shortwave Radiation that reaches Earth's surface, thus warming Earth, and producing a continued increase in OLR. You get increasing OLR from two sources: decreasing Cloud Cover, since Clouds trap OLR and increasing ISR, which continually increases OLR.

Indeed, multiple sources have confirmed that albedo has decreased since the beginning of measuring the albedo, with one being the ISSCP, and the second being Earthshine.

Image

ISSCP has confirmed that Cloud Cover has decreased by roughly 4-5% from 1983-2000, which when Global Warming was occuring. Since then, Cloud Cover has flatlined, and Global Temperatures have followed suit, instead of increasing, like they should have if CO2 was the dominant driver of the Climate.

Image

The Earthshine experiment calculates albedo through reflected incoming shortwave radiation from albedo changes, that reflects off of the moon. More information on the Earthshine experiment can be found here: (LINK)

Through Dr. Phillip Goode and Dr. Enric Palle's calculations, they found that the albedo reconstruction is in very good agreement with ISSCP- that it has decreased substantially and has added several w/m^2 of energy to Earth's Energy Budget.

Image

The blue and black lines are albedo reconstructions, and the red line is the amount of Energy GHGs have added to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790. They are dwarfed entirely by just albedo changes alone. Albedo added 7-8 w/m^2 of Energy to Earth's Energy Budget up until 1790, which probably explains about all of the warming that took place during that time frame.

In their peer reviewed paper, the two solar scientists highlight that cloud variability is likely to account for Global Warming that occured during the late 20th Century. (SOURCE)

For a lay approach, Dr. Palle has put the Earthshine findings into one powerpoint slideshow.

Clouds act as a forcing and as a feedback. So how do we know that most of the decrease in Cloud Cover is simply not a product of warming temperatures, resulting in a positive feedback from increased Carbon Dioxide?

We know that most of the increase in temperature from clouds has not been a positive feedback, because water vapour has not increased at all. With a warmer Earth, the theory is that there will be less water vapour molecules that will be able to condense into Clouds because the planet heats up. You would find a surplus of moisture in the air, if this were to be the case. But you don't.

Image

The graph above is from the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) and shows that over the course of the years, there has been a negative water vapour anomaly that has begun to show up in recent years- meaning that water vapour is decreasing, and that the water cycle is slowing down, contrary to the positive feedback hypothesis, where the water cycle should speed up.

But what could be impacting Clouds if the decrease in Cloud Cover is not due to a positive feedback from warming?

Galactic Cosmic Rays are likely causing the decrease in Cloud Cover, and there is so much evidence that points to Cosmic Rays as being the primary driver of cloud cover changes.

Just this year, the CERN experiment has proven that Cosmic Rays can alter aerosol production.

Image

The graph above from Kirkby et. al 2011, show that as more and more Cosmic Rays impact the air, more and more aerosoles are produced, which are the seedlings to cloud formations. When a water vapour molecule condenses on an aerosol, you get a cloud. More of these aerosoles would mean that more clouds would form, and thus, more GCRs have a cooling influence on Earth.

But the most damning piece of evidence that Cosmic Rays are the primary drivers of Cloud Cover are from the FD evidence.

Forbush Decreases occur when high amounts of Coronal Mass Ejections cause there to be sudden subtantially less amounts of GCRs than normal. If GCRs are the primary drivers of Climate Change, you would expect a 5-10 day lag with the amount of aerosoles in the atmosphere after a Forbush decrease. And this is what observational evidence is saying.

Image

The dashed line from Svensmark 2009is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.

In addition, we have this new paper, which is the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of evidence that supports a CR-Influence on Climate.

From the conclusions:

Quote:
The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statistically
significant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state of
the atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceeding
the threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data)
are considered. The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.


Image

The group of physicists found that daytime temperatures are increasing faster than daytime temperatures with Forbush decreases, which strongly supports the CR driving Cloud Cover driving Climate Theory. This is because clouds reflect ISR in the daytime, cooling off daytime temperatures, and trap LWR at night. With decreases in Cloud Cover, you would get daytime temperatures warming faster than nighttime temperatures, which would get you a larger diurnal temperature change, and this is what has been observed.

There is even more evidence than this for example, that climate sensitivity is low, but I just gave you a taste of all of the evidence that is out there that supports that about all of the climate change that occured in the late 20th Century- the timeframe where CAGW scientists say that this is where natural cycles can no longer explain Global Warming.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:07 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Correct, since Kirkby has not been supported by any other research and the CERN data found opposite effects, there is no more evidence of a major GCR effect on cloud cover than not.


That's interesting... then explain this evidence...?

From my previous post...

Forbush Decreases occur when high amounts of Coronal Mass Ejections cause there to be sudden subtantially less amounts of GCRs than normal. If GCRs are the primary drivers of Climate Change, you would expect a 5-10 day lag with the amount of aerosoles in the atmosphere after a Forbush decrease. And this is what observational evidence is saying.

Image

The dashed line from Svensmark 2009is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.

In addition, we have this new paper, which is the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of evidence that supports a CR-Influence on Climate.

From the conclusions:

Quote:
The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statistically
significant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state of
the atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceeding
the threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data)
are considered. The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.


Image

The group of physicists found that daytime temperatures are increasing faster than daytime temperatures with Forbush decreases, which strongly supports the CR driving Cloud Cover driving Climate Theory. This is because clouds reflect ISR in the daytime, cooling off daytime temperatures, and trap LWR at night. With decreases in Cloud Cover, you would get daytime temperatures warming faster than nighttime temperatures, which would get you a larger diurnal temperature change, and this is what has been observed.

There is even more evidence than this for example, that climate sensitivity is low, but I just gave you a taste of all of the evidence that is out there that supports that about all of the climate change that occured in the late 20th Century- the timeframe where CAGW scientists say that this is where natural cycles can no longer explain Global Warming.

If you are saying that there is little evidence for the CR-Climate Hypothesis, then explain how the most pronounced Cloud to GCR correlation is in the mid-latitudes, which is what you can expect, with a CR Influence on Cloud Cover?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:09 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
What error margin? There was a estimated range, which is not an error margin. The estimate of a model compared to another model may agree within a range, but that still does not indicate accuracy of either model. It does indicate they agree to an extent, but that is all. Just as all of the models used to predict the path of hurricanes may have some level of agreement, but the path of the hurricane may not follow either model's path.


We can write the value as 13-21 w/m^2 +/- 1.3-2.1 w/m^2, using a standard 10% deviation error.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:15 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
What error margin? There was a estimated range, which is not an error margin. The estimate of a model compared to another model may agree within a range, but that still does not indicate accuracy of either model. It does indicate they agree to an extent, but that is all. Just as all of the models used to predict the path of hurricanes may have some level of agreement, but the path of the hurricane may not follow either model's path.


We can write the value as 13-21 w/m^2 +/- 1.3-2.1 w/m^2, using a standard 10% deviation error.


You can write it as such, but that does not do what you claim it does. A standard deviation is not usually a range, but creates a range on either side of a single measurement.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:19 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It is a correct statement. The fact there is natural variation in climate does not preclude the human impact. No rational person has ever claimed all of the warming has to be attributed to human action in order for there to be a human factor. The GHGs could have driven the climate to the point of warming being twice that of the natural variation according to that statement. and the feedbacks to the GHGs would be included in the driving aspect.


Yes, there is a human impact, as there is an impact by a fly in a football field. The human impact is so small and albedo changes have dominanted the recent warming, as I explain in my earlier post here, as well as basic evidence that goes very much against the positive feedback hypothesis you are refering to:


We know your belief, but evidence of the hypothesis has to be gathered and confirmed by independent research before science will accept it.


Quote:
There is so much evidence that Clouds have completely overwhelmed the CO2 effect in the past, and are currently doing so.


Only if you make the prior assumption that is the case.

Quote:
Let's start off with the basics, which is to figure out what is the dominant driver of the Climate System. Is it Anthropogenic CO2 or is it a natural cycle? To begin to determine this, we have to look at the equator for the monthly OLR that is escaping Earth's atmosphere. This is where we can look at OLR changes with the most accuracy, since the Tropics do not experience as much seasonal variation or albedo change as the NH or SH do, so to get rid of all of this noise that might influence the average OLR at the TOA we look at the Tropics.


Which is all well and good if you want to ignore the fact the impact of glaobal warming will be more towards the poles.

Quote:
The Climate Models have predicted a "hot spot" for CO2 doubling to appear by the Tropics. This is because of the hypothesized positive water vapour and cloud feedback at the Tropics. However, none of this has been observed at all. In fact, we observe an increase in OLR at the Tropics, which could validate


Or not, but why not create a strawman if needed?

Quote:
Lindzen, Hou, and Chou's hypothesis which is known as the "Iris effect.[/url]" It bascially states that as the planet warms, Cirrus clouds will decrease, which would allow for more OLR to reach the TOA, and produce a negative feedback on Earth's Climate. Two new peer reviewed papers document strong negative feedback from Cloud Cover. (SOURCE) (SOURCE)

Quoting respectably from the papers:

Quote:
We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.


I love the way some models are acceptable if you agree with the results. I wonder why the models showing the impact of increased CO2 and with good hindcasting are disbelieved in these cases.

Quote:
The CAM-SP shows strongly negative net cloud feedback in both the tropics and in the extratropics, resulting in a global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W m-2), at the low end of traditional AGCMs (e.g. Cess et al. 1996), but in accord with an analysis of 30- day SST/SST+2K climatologies from a global aquaplanet CRM run on the Earth Simulator (Miura et al. 2005). The conventional AGCMs differ greatly from each other but all have less negative net cloud forcings and correspondingly larger climate sensitivities than the
superparameterization. The coarse horizontal and vertical resolution of CAM3-SP means that it highly under-resolves the turbulent circulations that produce boundary layer clouds. Thus, one should interpret its predictions with caution. With this caveat, cloud feedbacks are arguably more naturally simulated by superparameterization than in conventional AGCMs [conventional climate models], suggesting a compelling need to better understand the differences between the results from these two approaches.


You seem to have missed an important caveat ....

Quote:
The OLR has increased roughly 4.5 w/m^2 per decade on average, since 1979. (SOURCE) This equates to roughly a 11-13 w/m^2 increase in OLR over this timeframe. It also indicates that something else other than CO2 is adding Energy to Earth's Energy Budget, since this roughly 10X CO2's RF since 1790.


You mean retaining energy as neither adds any energy to anything?

Quote:
The increase in OLR at the Tropics indicates that Cloud Cover may be most of the reason that OLR has increased by the Tropics, since when Clouds are subtracted from the Global Energy Flows, you get more Incoming Shortwave Radiation that reaches Earth's surface, thus warming Earth, and producing a continued increase in OLR. You get increasing OLR from two sources: decreasing Cloud Cover, since Clouds trap OLR and increasing ISR, which continually increases OLR.


It may or the effect that causes one may also cause the other.

Quote:
Indeed, multiple sources have confirmed that albedo has decreased since the beginning of measuring the albedo, with one being the ISSCP, and the second being Earthshine.

ISSCP has confirmed that Cloud Cover has decreased by roughly 4-5% from 1983-2000, which when Global Warming was occuring. Since then, Cloud Cover has flatlined, and Global Temperatures have followed suit, instead of increasing, like they should have if CO2 was the dominant driver of the Climate.


Not to mention the decreased solar output which would have no impacts ... right?

Quote:
Through Dr. Phillip Goode and Dr. Enric Palle's calculations, they found that the albedo reconstruction is in very good agreement with ISSCP- that it has decreased substantially and has added several w/m^2 of energy to Earth's Energy Budget.

The blue and black lines are albedo reconstructions, and the red line is the amount of Energy GHGs have added to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790. They are dwarfed entirely by just albedo changes alone. Albedo added 7-8 w/m^2 of Energy to Earth's Energy Budget up until 1790, which probably explains about all of the warming that took place during that time frame.


Actual paper references are better than the interpretation graphs.

Quote:
In their peer reviewed paper, the two solar scientists highlight that cloud variability is likely to account for Global Warming that occured during the late 20th Century. (SOURCE)


And they state that in their conclusions or is that the reinterpretation of your "sources"?

6. Conclusions
In this paper we have reviewed the physical
mechanisms behind solar irradiance variation, and
we have reviewed how on the timescale of solar
evolution, the Sun cannot have been any dimmer
than it is at the most recent activity minima.
We
have also shown how concurrent changes in the
Earth’s reflectance can produce a much larger
climate impact over relatively short time scales.
Thus, a possible Sun–albedo link, would have the
potential to produce large climate effects without
the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance.
These could provide an explanation for the
apparently large climate response to apparently
small solar changes, as well as how the 11
22 year solar
cycle is imprinted on Earth.
Regardless of its possible solar ties, we have seen
how the Earth’s large scale reflectance—and the
short wavelength part of the Earth’s radiation
budget—is a much more variable climate parameter
than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be
studied in as much detail as changes in the Sun’s
output or changes in the Earth’s atmospheric
infrared emission produced by anthropogenic greenhouse
gases. Long-term records of the Earth’s
reflectance will provide crucial input for general
circulation climate models, and will significantly
increase our ability to assess and predict climate
change.


Quote:
Clouds act as a forcing and as a feedback. So how do we know that most of the decrease in Cloud Cover is simply not a product of warming temperatures, resulting in a positive feedback from increased Carbon Dioxide?

We know that most of the increase in temperature from clouds has not been a positive feedback, because water vapour has not increased at all.


Really? No increase in water vapor at all? Where is the evidence for this claim for the entire atmosphere?

Quote:
With a warmer Earth, the theory is that there will be less water vapour molecules that will be able to condense into Clouds because the planet heats up. You would find a surplus of moisture in the air, if this were to be the case. But you don't.


Not exactly, the warmer the planet the more water vapor the atmosphere can contain as a whole. There would still be rain and snow, which would result from the atmosphere being oversaturated in localities.

Quote:
The graph above is from the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) and shows that over the course of the years, there has been a negative water vapour anomaly that has begun to show up in recent years- meaning that water vapour is decreasing, and that the water cycle is slowing down, contrary to the positive feedback hypothesis, where the water cycle should speed up.


It really would be better to use the actual source for the graphs, but if I remember correctly that anomaly is for the stratosphere, which is not clearly indicated by your source.

Quote:
But what could be impacting Clouds if the decrease in Cloud Cover is not due to a positive feedback from warming?


Many things, but the key is the probability.

Quote:
Galactic Cosmic Rays are likely causing the decrease in Cloud Cover, and there is so much evidence that points to Cosmic Rays as being the primary driver of cloud cover changes.


Except for the science.

Quote:


Yes and in insufficent levels to be significant.


Quote:
The graph above from Kirkby et. al 2011, show that as more and more Cosmic Rays impact the air, more and more aerosoles are produced, which are the seedlings to cloud formations. When a water vapour molecule condenses on an aerosol, you get a cloud. More of these aerosoles would mean that more clouds would form, and thus, more GCRs have a cooling influence on Earth.


The more clouds that may form, but the paper clearly indicates the formation is insufficient to be significant.

Quote:
But the most damning piece of evidence that Cosmic Rays are the primary drivers of Cloud Cover are from the FD evidence.

Forbush Decreases occur when high amounts of Coronal Mass Ejections cause there to be sudden subtantially less amounts of GCRs than normal. If GCRs are the primary drivers of Climate Change, you would expect a 5-10 day lag with the amount of aerosoles in the atmosphere after a Forbush decrease. And this is what observational evidence is saying.


Unless there is a connection to a real impact .... like one which may be significant.


Quote:
The dashed line from Svensmark 2009is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.


and if not, well .....

Quote:
In addition, we have this new paper, which is the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of evidence that supports a CR-Influence on Climate.

From the conclusions:

Quote:
The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statistically
significant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state of
the atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceeding
the threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data)
are considered. The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.


As long as you do not have to "adjust" the data by a few million years to make the fit work .....

Quote:
The group of physicists found that daytime temperatures are increasing faster than daytime temperatures with Forbush decreases, which strongly supports the CR driving Cloud Cover driving Climate Theory. This is because clouds reflect ISR in the daytime, cooling off daytime temperatures, and trap LWR at night. With decreases in Cloud Cover, you would get daytime temperatures warming faster than nighttime temperatures, which would get you a larger diurnal temperature change, and this is what has been observed.

There is even more evidence than this for example, that climate sensitivity is low, but I just gave you a taste of all of the evidence that is out there that supports that about all of the climate change that occured in the late 20th Century- the timeframe where CAGW scientists say that this is where natural cycles can no longer explain Global Warming.


Yes, a taste because significant and important aspects are not incuded in the interpretations you have provided from your sources.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:26 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Correct, since Kirkby has not been supported by any other research and the CERN data found opposite effects, there is no more evidence of a major GCR effect on cloud cover than not.


That's interesting... then explain this evidence...?

From my previous post...


Your previous post tried to use the CERN data even after I gave you the quote stating otherwise ......

Wayne Stollings wrote:


http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressRel ... 5.11E.html

Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.
“It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,” said Kirkby. “Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.”

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:12 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Two points here. The trend for water vapor over the period 1992-2005 shows a global increase over time, which is far from "not increased at all". The second is an actual error band representation based on an actual measurement and actual variations.

http://ktb.engin.umich.edu/RSG/pubs_fil ... _Trend.pdf

The Topex Microwave Radiometer was decommissioned in
January 2006, but left 13 years of continuous observations. An
end-of-mission recalibration effort was recently completed,
yielding a high quality TMR climate record of precipitable
water vapor and cloud liquid water. This dataset is analysed to
observe the trends from 1992-2005. It is found that the global
precipitable water vapor trend is positive at 0.9 + 0.06
mm/decade.
Maps of regional water vapor trends are generated
and it is shown that the correlation between sea surface
temperature trends and water vapor trends follows a simple
relationship derived from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:59 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Why argue with fruitcakes like snow123? The object is to stop fossil fuel use and slash and burn/forest cutting ASAP! Even then there is .4*C (about 1*F) warming in the form of momentum by mid-century. In 2009 three sets of tundra scientists warned that we are at the tipping point for tundra methane self release, and most agree from what I have read, that there is a 50% chance that we can avoid passing that tipping point, IF we stop HGHGs enough IN TIME.
All of snow's arguments have been previously debunked and he keeps rehashing old garbage.
The time for action is now. Go to a steady state economy, reduce birth rates to 1 or less, and increase death rates by letting people fight/starve. Stop airline flights and overseas shipping, let the economy continue its collapse. Bomb all coal fired power plants, and strafe slash and burners.
If people would have gone to 2 child families or less, and solar/wind power last century(like I did!), then the changes now wouldn't be so drastic. But no, people were too stupid and greedy. :x

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:58 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
We know your belief, but evidence of the hypothesis has to be gathered and confirmed by independent research before science will accept it. Only if you make the prior assumption that is the case.


The evidence of this hypothesis has been confirmed by multiple studies and many institutions, that present this evidence.

Quote:
Which is all well and good if you want to ignore the fact the impact of glaobal warming will be more towards the poles.


:-s

Did you read the part of my post that you quoted?

This is where we can look at OLR changes with the most accuracy, since the Tropics do not experience as much seasonal variation or albedo change as the NH or SH do, so to get rid of all of this noise that might influence the average OLR at the TOA we look at the Tropics.

The albedo changs at the poles would produce a positive feedback, providing more warming at the polar regions, which we do not want if we are to calculate an average reading of the OLR over the past 30-40 years. Since the Tropics do not see as much of an albedo change, we can look there for data with less noise in it.

Quote:
Or not, but why not create a strawman if needed?


No, the trophospheric hot spot is because of the positive water vapour feedback at the Tropics due to the increase in Greenhouse Gases. It is no straw man.

Quote:
I love the way some models are acceptable if you agree with the results. I wonder why the models showing the impact of increased CO2 and with good hindcasting are disbelieved in these cases.


The models that predict a positive water vapour feedback are incorrect, because simple observations, like increasing OLR at the Tropics, disprove them.

Quote:
You seem to have missed an important caveat ....


No I have not... cloud feedback and the cloud forcing are still the most uncertain aspects in Climate Science, and it is a basic given.

Quote:
You mean retaining energy as neither adds any energy to anything?


This link should help.

Quote:
The Earth can be considered as a physical system with an energy budget that includes all gains of incoming energy and all losses of outgoing energy.


Quote:
It may or the effect that causes one may also cause the other.


With Water Vapour decreasing since we started measuring it, that doesn't seem to be the case, or else we would have seen an increase in Water Vapour, which indicates that the water cycle is speeding up, an indicative of a positive water vapour and cloud feedback, but again, it has not been observed.

Quote:
Not to mention the decreased solar output which would have no impacts ... right?


The sun's output has reached record low levels, which probably explains the statistically insignificant cooling since 2001, but the clouds are the main driver of the climate system.

Image

Quote:
And they state that in their conclusions or is that the reinterpretation of your "sources"?


You missed a very important part of their conclusions...

Quote:
We
have also shown how concurrent changes in the
Earth’s reflectance can produce a much larger
climate impact over relatively short time scales.
Thus, a possible Sun–albedo link, would have the
potential to produce large climate effects without
the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance
.
These could provide an explanation for the
apparently large climate response to apparently
small solar changes, as well as how the 11
22 year solar
cycle is imprinted on Earth.


Quote:
Really? No increase in water vapor at all? Where is the evidence for this claim for the entire atmosphere?


Basic data from the NVAP.

Image

Quote:
Not exactly, the warmer the planet the more water vapor the atmosphere can contain as a whole. There would still be rain and snow, which would result from the atmosphere being oversaturated in localities.


There is a very big problem with the positive feedback scenario, and that is if water vapour increases, then so will the rate of evaporation, which essentially removes heat from the surface of Earth. This would be another negative feedback. They have always existed in Earth's climate, and will continue to exist for the eons to come.

Quote:
It really would be better to use the actual source for the graphs, but if I remember correctly that anomaly is for the stratosphere, which is not clearly indicated by your source.


Yep, it's for the 300-500 mb anomaly. I posted the total water vapour anomaly above.

Quote:
and if not, well .....


So you don't deny that when FDs occur, a subsequent drop in Global aerosoles usually occurs right after?

Quote:
Yes, a taste because significant and important aspects are not incuded in the interpretations you have provided from your sources.


Um, no. All of my sources support my current stance on Climate Change.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Why argue with fruitcakes like snow123?


A better question would be, why listen to ignoramuses like Johnny Electriglide?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group