EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:04 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:05 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:
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.


Starting with 1992 as the starting date of the trend analysis instead of using the entire dataset, is considered "cherry picking" in anyone's definition.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:45 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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.


Starting with 1992 as the starting date of the trend analysis instead of using the entire dataset, is considered "cherry picking" in anyone's definition.


Only if one is ignorant of the facts. The measurement system discussed began in 1992 so there was no earlier data which to use. The measurement system went offline in 2005 so there was no later data from that system either. All of the data from that system was used so there is no "cherry picking" at all.

_________________
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 7:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
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.


So many you would not have to use more than your fingers to show the connected, not confirming studies.

You drift from misrepresenting the fact of the uncertainty of this possible connection to a realistic confirmation of the lack of confirmation:

Quote:
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:
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.


No, it is clear the issues of seasonal variation in the areas where actual warming would be expected to be the greatest is "too noisy" for some reason, such as the conclusions are not supported.

Quote:
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.


Yes, that would be a good reason to ignore actual changes ...... :-

Quote:
Since the Tropics do not see as much of an albedo change, we can look there for data with less noise in it.


Where the actual warming is not a great too. The picture would come closer to cherry picking as you claim from the use of a complete data set.

Quote:
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.


Your usage was as it does not prove the claims you were supposedly trying to support.

Quote:
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.


And thus you lump all models you dislike into one group. So you are claiming there can be no increase in OLR due to a temperature increase after an increase in water vapor?

Quote:
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.


Yet you seem to claim it is a fait accompli of new science.

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


This link should help.


Did it help you at all? I hope you noticed there was no energy added from the CO2, water vapor, or clouds because they do not produce energy.

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.


The incoming energy not energy added by components within the system

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:
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.


First there is no "statistically insignificant cooling" if something is statistically insignificant is is neither cooling nor warming. If it is staitstically significant it will either be cooling or warming, nothing else can be claimed. You claim the clouds are the "main driver" even after admitting "cloud feedback and the cloud forcing are still the most uncertain aspects in Climate Science, and it is a basic given"? The assumptions are rampant and all unsupported by the evidence.

Quote:
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.


I did note the potential effects of a possible link that could .....

Quote:
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


There is a basic problem using third party interpretations of data .... it cannot be confirmed the data was properly used.

http://nvap.stcnet.com/

The NVAP dataset is designed to be model-independent and relies mainly on satellite measurements; however historically, rawinsonde data has also been included. Early versions of NVAP included layered and total column water vapor on a 1 x 1 degree grid combining water vapor measurements from radiosondes, the TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS) and Special Sensor Microwave / Imager (SSM/I), while the "next generation" dataset, NVAP-NG (2000-2001), added data from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) and Special Sensor Microwave / Temperature-2 (SSM/T2) on a 0.5 x 0.5 degree grid. Retrieved atmospheric water vapor values from each instrument were merged using a simplistic weighting scheme based on the perceived accuracy of each measurement. Gaps due to non-existent or bad data were filled using spatial and temporal averaging techniques.

Many time dependent biases exist in the heritage NVAP dataset due to algorithm changes and the addition/subtraction of instruments (shown above). Use of consistent algorithms through time should remove these. Many new sources of data have been added since the last phase of NVAP. Many existing data sources have been reanalyzed themselves, producing more stable, climate quality sources of TPW.


Quote:
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.


Yes, and once equilibrium is approached the rate would be similar to the prior level. The rate of evaporation would be locally dependent and may merely be extended for a longer period to approach the new equilibrium.

Quote:
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.


But again a secondary source for the graph which is an interpretation of the data not necessarily in line with the originating source.

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


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


No, the data seems to show a connection, if the data is correct. The causation is still far from proven, however.

Quote:
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.


Even if the data they use does not really support that stance ..... #-o

_________________
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: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:37 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2277
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
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

Stop all HGHGs NOW!!!

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
The source of many of the third party interpretations of data presented here, which seems very similar to the way the group CO2 Science presented its "interpreted evidence" ..............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... of_Science

_________________
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 Nov 21, 2011 9:45 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
<chirp> <chirp> <chirp>

The crickets seem to be all which is left of Snowy's position defense.

_________________
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 Nov 22, 2011 4:48 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
Wayne Stollings wrote:
<chirp> <chirp> <chirp>

The crickets seem to be all which is left of Snowy's position defense.



Don't gloat. Brilliance is good; ego is not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:57 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
Quote:
Why argue with fruitcakes like snow123?



Because snow123 isn't a fruitcake. S/he has a point of view and information that informs. It maybe right or wrong, in the factual sense, but to denigrate a human being based on either well informed or unfortunately misinformed information is a lapse in true understanding. That is quite a statement, is it not? I am saying that you are missing the mark entirely. It is good that we are here and that we are sharing information and opinions ..... but it is the relationship that really counts .... in fact, it is ALL about HOW we relate and that we DO relate and that we ARE related.

Quote:
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.


Very important information (Love you for that!) The object is also getting along with each other inspite of our difficulties or maybe even through our difficulties. Whatever "idea" getting in the way of that most basic reality which is our relationship with one another.

Quote:
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.


Really Johnny? You want to preserve the Earth by destroying it's inhabitants?
You know that most of us want to preserve life on Earth because we ARE life on Earth?
Would you prefer to see all of us dumb folk die?
War as a means of decreasing stupid people so that the forests might thrive? So that the oceans might not be over-fished?

I have never encountered anyone who has so missed the mark as you.

Quote:
Stop airline flights and overseas shipping, let the economy continue its collapse. Bomb all coal fired power plants, and strafe slash and burners.


The economy seems to be collapsing, and maybe 3rd world countries are happy about that. They never got to partake in the ways we did anyway. And it was never about their IQ.

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[/quote]

Were they so stupid? Or were they just ensconced in belief, religion, and tradition? Like the tradition of marriage which will ensure more population? Tell me again how you describe your particular religion? Glad that you are so brilliant and extraordinarily special. The rest should probably be bombed.

I could be more patient .... if I was.

You have much to offer Johnny, but you hold yourself as special and that is so delusional since we are all in this together. You have had more opportunities than others and you have had more chance of education ... and that, nothing more, has made you believe that you should survive while other less advantaged should die of starvation or be bombed.

I am glad you are concerned about the environment, but you fail to recognize that we are part of the environment just as every tree, river, whale and aquifier is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
<chirp> <chirp> <chirp>

The crickets seem to be all which is left of Snowy's position defense.



Don't gloat. Brilliance is good; ego is not.


Not gloating, but pointing out the abandonment of said defense for whatever reason.

_________________
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: Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
I haven't been posting much on this board lately, and I'm starting to think about posting more here again.

[quote="Wayne Stollings]No, it is clear the issues of seasonal variation in the areas where actual warming would be expected to be the greatest is "too noisy" for some reason, such as the conclusions are not supported.
[/quote]

Why would one pick the regions that would have the most contamination in their dataset instead of the less contaminated Tropical Regions, which do not have the albedo contamination and the seasonal variation contamination? The Tropics are a good place to measure changes in OLR, VS. The Globe, because changes in Tropical OLR have major implications for Earth's Energy Budget.

Image

The decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover has significant implications for the Global Energy Budget, because this is where heat is redistributed all throughout the globe through oceanic currents and advecting air masses. A change in heat in the tropics has significant implications for the Global temperature, as El Nino and La Nina clearly demonstrate. A decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover which allows for more ISR to reach the Tropics is extremely crucial, because then that extra heat gets distributed throughout the entire globe. Global Warming, if you will.

In the polar regions, the extra energy recieved would decrease the albedo associated with ice and snow, and you get a positive feedback, where the polar region warms the fastest.

This change in this Global Cloud Forcing (with most of it coming from the decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover) has allowed for 7 w/m^2 of energy to be added to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe.

Image

Quote:
Yes, that would be a good reason to ignore actual changes ......


We're trying to calculate the radiative forcings that have impacted Earth's Energy Budget, not radiative feedbacks. That is a whole another issue.

Quote:
Where the actual warming is not a great too. The picture would come closer to cherry picking as you claim from the use of a complete data set.


Because the extra surplus energy gets distributed from the Tropics to the Mid Latitudes and Polar Regions.

Hurricanes are excellent examples of this.

Their primary function is to remove heat from the Tropical Regions and redistribute them to the temperate and mid latitude regions.

Quote:
So you are claiming there can be no increase in OLR due to a temperature increase after an increase in water vapor?


In order for there to be an increase in OLR, you would need a SIGNIFICANT change in ISR to increase the OLR, because H2O, even though it is a feedback, has a tremendous implication for the Global Energy Flows.

Quote:
Yet you seem to claim it is a fait accompli of new science.


The data can speak for itself.

Quote:
Did it help you at all? I hope you noticed there was no energy added from the CO2, water vapor, or clouds because they do not produce energy.


To claim otherwise would just be stupid... the only 'thing' that produces energy is the sun.

Quote:
The incoming energy not energy added by components within the system


The incoming energy is made up of those components.

Quote:
First there is no "statistically insignificant cooling" if something is statistically insignificant is is neither cooling nor warming. If it is staitstically significant it will either be cooling or warming, nothing else can be claimed. You claim the clouds are the "main driver" even after admitting "cloud feedback and the cloud forcing are still the most uncertain aspects in Climate Science, and it is a basic given"? The assumptions are rampant and all unsupported by the evidence.


In statistics, something that is statistically insignificant means that it has not met the 95% Confidence Level yet. Thus, it could appear to have a positive or negative slope, while not actually being significant. This would be called a "statistically insignificant cooling or warming."

Take this HadCrut graph for example. Over the last 10 years there was a negative slope in the temperature, but it has not met the 95% Signficance quite yet.

A statistically insignificant cooling.

Image

Quote:
I did note the potential effects of a possible link that could .....


Yes, so essentially they say that a solar influence on Climate Change does not directly need to come from TSI alone. Changes in Cloud Cover could significantly alter the climate on Earth.

Quote:
There is a basic problem using third party interpretations of data .... it cannot be confirmed the data was properly used.


Huh? The graph sources when the algorithm changes due to a switch in satellites and possible errors in the data.

Quote:
Yes, and once equilibrium is approached the rate would be similar to the prior level. The rate of evaporation would be locally dependent and may merely be extended for a longer period to approach the new equilibrium.


Once equilibrium is met, we would stop warming, because the amount of OLR leaving Earth would be equal to the amount of ISR reaching Earth.

Quote:
No, the data seems to show a connection, if the data is correct. The causation is still far from proven, however.


Heh? Are you arguing that the decrease in Global aerosoles at the same time GCRs decrease is not enough to say that GCRs are the causation?

Take this paper, which shows that GCRs have a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range during FDs, when they have the most evident effect on Climate.

They found that within a few days of the Forbush Decrease, (which is a small lag) the diurnal temperature substantially deviates from the normal diurnal temperature mean.

The diurnal temperature mean can be best described as the difference between the daytime and nightime temperatures.

The reason for why the diurnal temperature range would increase right after a FD, indicates not only that GCRs can influence the atmospheric processes on Earth substantially, but they also do so through Cloud Cover changes.

A sudden reduction in GCRs would substanitally lower Cloud Cover for those few days, which would substantially increase the difference in nighttime and daytime temperatures, since Clouds reflect ISR and trap OLR, reducing the diurnal temperature range.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans...7-315-2011.pdf

Image


Quoting Paper


The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.



Or take this paper, which also finds a strong correlation between FDs and Global aerosoles, the "seeds" for the Clouds.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/F RSEMR22l/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/3-Svensmark-et-al- 2009-GRL.pdf

Image


The dashed line is 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.


Or take this study which highlights GCRs being a "plausable" Climate Driver:


http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_20 08.pdf


Quote:
In conclusion, a CR–climate link seems to be a
plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of
statistical studies and existing theoretical models.
----------



Low Level Cloud Cover and GCRs for Europe as presented by Usoskin et. al 2008.


Image

The evidence from Dragic et. al, Svensmark et. al and Usoskin et. al are enough to convince an objective researcher that GCRs impact the Climate through Cloud Cover changes.

Quote:
Even if the data they use does not really support that stance .....

:?:

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:46 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
{Double Post Removed}

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
I haven't been posting much on this board lately, and I'm starting to think about posting more here again.

Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, it is clear the issues of seasonal variation in the areas where actual warming would be expected to be the greatest is "too noisy" for some reason, such as the conclusions are not supported.


Why would one pick the regions that would have the most contamination in their dataset instead of the less contaminated Tropical Regions, which do not have the albedo contamination and the seasonal variation contamination?


For one thing, those are the areas with the greatest increase in temperatures and if you are trying to prove the global temperature correlation they are the critical areas to include.

Quote:
The Tropics are a good place to measure changes in OLR, VS. The Globe, because changes in Tropical OLR have major implications for Earth's Energy Budget.


So they ignore the rest of the globe and assume there is a correlation based on the area they do use even if the temperature increases are greater in the rest of the globe?

Quote:
Image


Comparing apples to oranges does what exactly here? Is that graph even from a paper or is it an interoretation based on a paper as we see from CO2 Science?

Quote:
The decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover has significant implications for the Global Energy Budget, because this is where heat is redistributed all throughout the globe through oceanic currents and advecting air masses. A change in heat in the tropics has significant implications for the Global temperature, as El Nino and La Nina clearly demonstrate. A decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover which allows for more ISR to reach the Tropics is extremely crucial, because then that extra heat gets distributed throughout the entire globe. Global Warming, if you will.


Implications, possilby, but evidence of global impact is another case. The cloud cover at night retains heat while cloud cover during the day restricts the amount of incoming ISR reaching the ground. High level clouds also have a different impact than low level clouds. So why assume tropical clouds indicate a total global impact?

Quote:
In the polar regions, the extra energy recieved would decrease the albedo associated with ice and snow, and you get a positive feedback, where the polar region warms the fastest.


Which supports the conclusion of tropical clouds affecting global temperatures how?

Quote:
This change in this Global Cloud Forcing (with most of it coming from the decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover) has allowed for 7 w/m^2 of energy to be added to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe.


If you follow the assumptions presented, which the experts in that field do not seem to do.

Quote:
Image


Again, is this from a real paper or someone's interpretation?

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, that would be a good reason to ignore actual changes ......


We're trying to calculate the radiative forcings that have impacted Earth's Energy Budget, not radiative feedbacks. That is a whole another issue.


Then why compare the cloud cover in the tropics to the global temperature, which clearly would include the radiative feedbacks?

Quote:
Quote:
Where the actual warming is not a great too. The picture would come closer to cherry picking as you claim from the use of a complete data set.


Because the extra surplus energy gets distributed from the Tropics to the Mid Latitudes and Polar Regions.


And if there is additional surplus energy directly added in those areas, how is that accounted in this calculation?

Quote:
Hurricanes are excellent examples of this.


As is the Gulf current to name just one.

Quote:
Their primary function is to remove heat from the Tropical Regions and redistribute them to the temperate and mid latitude regions.


Along with other mechanisms, but that still does not address the energy budget for those regions, which can be different from the tropics in many ways.

Quote:
Quote:
So you are claiming there can be no increase in OLR due to a temperature increase after an increase in water vapor?


In order for there to be an increase in OLR, you would need a SIGNIFICANT change in ISR to increase the OLR, because H2O, even though it is a feedback, has a tremendous implication for the Global Energy Flows.


Not really, as the simple example of a cloudy day with a cloudless night shows. The ISR does not change, although the OLR will compared to a clear day and a cloudy night.

Quote:
Quote:
Yet you seem to claim it is a fait accompli of new science.


The data can speak for itself.


It does and it says it is not complete enough to make such a claim, which was my point concernign your apparant claim.

Quote:
Quote:
Did it help you at all? I hope you noticed there was no energy added from the CO2, water vapor, or clouds because they do not produce energy.


To claim otherwise would just be stupid... the only 'thing' that produces energy is the sun.


Actually, no, the earth and humans add a very small amount of energy to the system. Since I pointed out the more correct reference of energy retention, I assume you now agree with my point.

Quote:
Quote:
The incoming energy not energy added by components within the system


The incoming energy is made up of those components.


No, that is incorrect. The incoming energy is one component, the rest are retention and reflection components within the system which impacts the amount of energy available at the surface.

Quote:
Quote:
First there is no "statistically insignificant cooling" if something is statistically insignificant is is neither cooling nor warming. If it is staitstically significant it will either be cooling or warming, nothing else can be claimed. You claim the clouds are the "main driver" even after admitting "cloud feedback and the cloud forcing are still the most uncertain aspects in Climate Science, and it is a basic given"? The assumptions are rampant and all unsupported by the evidence.


In statistics, something that is statistically insignificant means that it has not met the 95% Confidence Level yet.


The confidence level can be adjusted lower or higher than 95%, the that is the more common level used. There is no warming nor cooling trend if the statistics do not indicate it. The proper position is to extend the time to a point where the trend is statistically significant and use that trend unless and until another trend can be shown to be significant. Thus, you cannot claim a statistically insignificant trqnd. You may hold a belief a trend may show a trend in the future, but without the statistical support you are only looking at noise.

Quote:
Thus, it could appear to have a positive or negative slope, while not actually being significant. This would be called a "statistically insignificant cooling or warming."


No, it would be called noise if one were properly looking at the trend. Short term time frames do not show trends easily and you are trying to deal with very short frames.

Quote:
Take this HadCrut graph for example. Over the last 10 years there was a negative slope in the temperature, but it has not met the 95% Signficance quite yet.

A statistically insignificant cooling.


How far from showing a statistical trend is it exactly? You will notice several periods of similar dips over the years, but the actual statistical trend is warming once you do the calculations.

Quote:
Image


Why try to use statisically insignificant data if the goal is not to attempt to cherry pick?

Quote:
Quote:
I did note the potential effects of a possible link that could .....


Yes, so essentially they say that a solar influence on Climate Change does not directly need to come from TSI alone. Changes in Cloud Cover could significantly alter the climate on Earth.


They state the POTENTIAL effects of a POSSIBLE link COULD have SOME effect, which leaves the probability of significance at a low level. Anything is possible, but most things are not probable and science deals with probabilities.

Quote:
Quote:
There is a basic problem using third party interpretations of data .... it cannot be confirmed the data was properly used.


Huh? The graph sources when the algorithm changes due to a switch in satellites and possible errors in the data.


The third party does not provide what data was actually used for the graph or whether any adjustments were made nor whether the adjustments were consistent with the information the originating source had or provided. That is a problem with third party sources of graphs, especially if the graph was not part of a published paper by the originators of the data. I have seen this too many times from sources like CO2 Science, where they interpret the data themselves to create graphs which may not be as accurate as they appear.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, and once equilibrium is approached the rate would be similar to the prior level. The rate of evaporation would be locally dependent and may merely be extended for a longer period to approach the new equilibrium.


Once equilibrium is met, we would stop warming, because the amount of OLR leaving Earth would be equal to the amount of ISR reaching Earth.


No, I was speaking of temperature induced atmospheric moisture content, thus the reference to evaporation. The energy buget might not remain balanced at that point due to the localized changes.

Quote:
Quote:
No, the data seems to show a connection, if the data is correct. The causation is still far from proven, however.


Heh? Are you arguing that the decrease in Global aerosoles at the same time GCRs decrease is not enough to say that GCRs are the causation?


Yes. The cause of one may also be the cause of the other, thus a connection but not a cause and effect. I may have a party which cause me to put out copious amounts of food and drink in addition to having large numbers of people showing up. The cause is the party yet there is a connection between the amount of people showing up and the amount of food and drink being made available. Thus, if I assumed the cause of the people showing up was the amount of food and drink being made available I would be surprised if I randomly put out similar amounts of food and drink expecting people to show up. That is correlation not causation and it applies in both cases unless and until the mechanisms are clearly determined and confirmed.

Quote:
Take this paper, which shows that GCRs have a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range during FDs, when they have the most evident effect on Climate.


No, it shows correlation as the mechanism is still uncertain.

Quote:
They found that within a few days of the Forbush Decrease, (which is a small lag) the diurnal temperature substantially deviates from the normal diurnal temperature mean.

The diurnal temperature mean can be best described as the difference between the daytime and nightime temperatures.

The reason for why the diurnal temperature range would increase right after a FD, indicates not only that GCRs can influence the atmospheric processes on Earth substantially, but they also do so through Cloud Cover changes.


No, it shows there seems to be a link, which is far removed from proof of cause. The CERN experiments clearly showed that GCR was not sufficient to expalin the changes proposed in this case.

Quote:
A sudden reduction in GCRs would substanitally lower Cloud Cover for those few days, which would substantially increase the difference in nighttime and daytime temperatures, since Clouds reflect ISR and trap OLR, reducing the diurnal temperature range.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans...7-315-2011.pdf

Image


Except the mechanism assumed is not known and what is known does not support the conclusion. The correlation is apparent, but it does not rise to the level of evidence of causation.

Quote:
Quoting Paper


The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.


The CERN data shows the probability of an influence too, just not the level you seem to believe is being shown.



Quote:
Or take this paper, which also finds a strong correlation between FDs and Global aerosoles, the "seeds" for the Clouds.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/F RSEMR22l/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/3-Svensmark-et-al- 2009-GRL.pdf


Correlation is still not causation and the mechanisms still need to be sufficiently determined.

Quote:
Image


The dashed line is 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.


Or that the same cause affects both data sets, but at different rates. Correlation is not causation unless the mechanisms can be described and confirmed.


Quote:
Or take this study which highlights GCRs being a "plausable" Climate Driver:


http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_20 08.pdf


Quote:
In conclusion, a CR–climate link seems to be a
plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of
statistical studies and existing theoretical models.
----------


I would have to question how a link could be a driver given the CERN data.


Quote:
Low Level Cloud Cover and GCRs for Europe as presented by Usoskin et. al 2008.


Image

The evidence from Dragic et. al, Svensmark et. al and Usoskin et. al are enough to convince an objective researcher that GCRs impact the Climate through Cloud Cover changes.


Only if the objective researcher is not familiar with basic science.

Quote:
Quote:
Even if the data they use does not really support that stance .....

:?:


The data from CERN does not support the sole impact of GCR on cloud formation nor even the sole cause of the formation of nuclei. That data is critical in showing the mechanism needed to move from correlation to causation.

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

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


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