EnviroLink Forum

I don't think climate for you is the source I would go with. Isn't that just a blog with an agenda?


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.abstract

Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.


http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/docu ... 9Wentz.pdf
Nasa shoowed how they came about straightening Roy Spencer's data error because there was a conflict of physics.

We have a team of scientists showing poor correlation fo GCR's to warming.


http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... s-2-4.html

Empirical associations have been reported between solar-modulated cosmic ray ionization of the atmosphere and global average low-level cloud cover but evidence for a systematic indirect solar effect remains ambiguous. It has been suggested that galactic cosmic rays with sufficient energy to reach the troposphere could alter the population of cloud condensation nuclei and hence microphysical cloud properties (droplet number and concentration), inducing changes in cloud processes analogous to the indirect cloud albedo effect of tropospheric aerosols and thus causing an indirect solar forcing of climate. Studies have probed various correlations with clouds in particular regions or using limited cloud types or limited time periods; however, the cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994. Together with the lack of a proven physical mechanism and the plausibility of other causal factors affecting changes in cloud cover, this makes the association between galactic cosmic ray-induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation controversial. {2.7}


Of course this is where Snowie likes to be. Because its controversial!

That still does not make the driver unlikely. It can offset that driver to some degree, but it does not make it unlikely, which was the point. A possible negative feedback and a known driver.

_________________
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

Probably? The the other measurements could also be off by 25% or more thereby throwing the appearance of correlation off completely.



No, the point should be the lack of mechanisms and the lack of accuracy being used to create the appearance of something that is not supported by the evidence.



I can EXPLAIN how Venusian heat rays have the same effect, but the issue with science is 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

What forcing is that? A correlation is not a forcing, it is not a mechanism, it is nothing but a correlation that MAY indicate an unknown forcing that will have to be evidenced before it can be called anything real.



Correlation is NOTHING without evidence of a viable mechanism.



With what mechanism is the role established?



With what evidenced mechanism?



They do not document the impact, but only the correlation which is entirely different.



If frogs had wings they would not bump their butts on the ground, but they do not have wings and they do bump their butts on the ground. Both arguments have the same weight unless and until there is evidence to support them.

_________________
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

Relative humidity rate will drop if the potential for moisture increases faster than the actual moisture content because the scale is relative to a changing variable.

_________________
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

The deniers are snow, banana, and the plumber(flogger?) from TES. Deniers, to me, are as bad as spammers.
They are like the dunces in school who drag down the whole class. Howdy Doodies for the fossil fuel lobbies.

_________________
"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

Must be frustrating to have such fact based scepics pointing out the lack of reality in your new fashionable religion.

What do you have which is convining that the IPCC has underestimated the degree of trouble?

What kind of idiot are you?? Didn't you see the plant hardiness zone change thread????
Go here, read every link, then come back educated, goodbye!
http://climatecommunication.org/new/art ... /overview/

_________________
"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

Snowy123 wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
http://s267.photobucket.com/albums/ii31 ... cefig5.jpg

If this photo will open up I think we would find that Snowies scenario of increased sun energy and increased co2 will make things even warmer than they are now. CO2 is very well understood. Even from the context of co2 is a weaker ghg than H2O, co2 is the stabel gas in the atmosphere and drives the average level of H2O in the atmosphere. We have our past level of climate thanks to co2. More is better doesn't go well with me during this heat wave we are having now. With increased co2 emissions rather than less, warmer gets ugly real fast.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/radiation.html

So please explain why Relative Humidity levels have been decreasing while the lapse rate feedback appears to be positive?



[color=#408000]Are you avoiding absolute or specific humidity?
Lapse rate is a negative feedback. It appears that lapse rate will slow down the ghg effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_ch ... Lapse_rate
Lapse rateMain article: Lapse rate
The atmosphere's temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Since emission of infrared radiation varies with temperature, longwave radiation escaping to space from the relatively cold upper atmosphere is less than that emitted toward the ground from the lower atmosphere. Thus, the strength of the greenhouse effect depends on the atmosphere's rate of temperature decrease with height. Both theory and climate models indicate that global warming will reduce the rate of temperature decrease with height, producing a negative lapse rate feedback that weakens the greenhouse effect. Measurements of the rate of temperature change with height are very sensitive to small errors in observations, making it difficult to establish whether the models agree with observations.[57][58]




[/color]

Yes that is my point.

What have you that shows that the IPCC has underestimated the degree of the problem?

If you want me to read the material then you will have to explain what it is, and how it relates, and not just post the longest piece of drivel you can find hoping I will go away when faced by such a long document which no-one has ever read.

It's got a bit warmer. Yes. And?

Do you have anything which shows that the IPCC has underestimated the problem?

The link you posted does not show this.

You need to learn to read other peoples posts and be less pompus. Otherwise you will persuade no-one of your points and just be regarded as an ignorant fool who is scared to open his mind to the possibility of being wrong.

What do you have other than this red herring approach? You believe the problem is not significant at a certain level and thus it must be taken as fact?

_________________
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

What do you have other than this red herring approach? You believe the problem is not significant at a certain level and thus it must be taken as fact?



You could easily learn from your own advice.

_________________
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