EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:05 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:49 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Snowy123 wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
http://s267.photobucket.com/albums/ii310/jeffgreen11/?action=view&current=pbsksradiativebalancefig5.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?



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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:43 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20530
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Nothing here is related to the NEGATIVE feedback of a volcano making the driver unlikely. It seems to be another grouping of "what if" possibities.


A negative feedback will reduce the effect of any forcing, that is how it can be calculated that negative feedbacks exist within the climate system.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:49 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20530
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
A decline of about half the level if I read the graph correctly.


I traced a blue line and it seems that the ion chambers are only slightly lower in 1992 than the neutron monitors.


At least 25% from the original graph but less than the 50% I initially thought I saw. Using the scale on the left the ion chamber drops 4 units from the peak and the monitor drops 3.


Snowy123 wrote:
Yep, the difference is not that great, and is probably within the error margins of each of the measuring devices.


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

Quote:
The point of the matter is that 1992 featured a record low in GCR counts, which lead to the lowest cumulative GCRs recorded during that timeframe.


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.

Quote:
And the point is that there was a pretty big trend in GCRs during the late-20th Century warming, which as I posted from Dorman 2012, can EXPLAIN a large portion of the warming observed during that timeframe.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:57 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20530
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
The evidence and correlations I am showing for the solar theory are better than the correlation for CO2 and temperature.

There are significant uncertainties that still reside with GCRs-clouds and climate, I agree. If the impact of GCRs was strong enough to create a 10% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the 20th Century (which we do not know) then it would equate to a forcing of 8 w/m^2. For comparison, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC is 1.6 w/m^2.

That is why it is necessary to be skeptical of the IPCC position that most of the warming is anthropogenic.



Image


It seems that IPCC has a position on how the sun is relevant to climate change. Do you think they are well backed up in this regard.


And while it has been observed that there is a forcing that enhances the solar forcing from TSI during the solar cycle by up to a factor of 7, the IPCC has totally ignored all of the other ways in which the sun can impact oscillations, the stratosphere, the clouds etc.


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.

Quote:
Nuzhdina 2001 documented a correlation between ENSO and geomagnetic activity, suggesting that the sun may play a role in ENSO events.


Correlation is NOTHING without evidence of a viable mechanism.

Quote:
Or Palamara and Bryant 2004 which find that geomagnetic activity has an important role to play in the Northern Annual Mode.


With what mechanism is the role established?

Quote:
Raspopov et. al 2007 which find that long term trends in solar variations can have a "pronounced" effect on the climate.


With what evidenced mechanism?

Quote:
There are simply many papers that document many other ways that the sun can impact the atmospheric parameters, and climate.


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

Quote:
If low cloud cover decreases would be found to have created a forcing of 8 w/m^2 during the 20th Century, then the IPCC graphic you posted is pretty much worthless.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:59 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20530
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
http://s267.photobucket.com/albums/ii310/jeffgreen11/?action=view&current=pbsksradiativebalancefig5.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?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:20 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2260
Location: Central Colorado
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:52 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
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.


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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:10 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2260
Location: Central Colorado
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! :mrgreen:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
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]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
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.


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?


Tim. Care to talk facts rather than mind games.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:22 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
renewable guy wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
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.


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?


Tim. Care to talk facts rather than mind games.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:26 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
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! :mrgreen:
http://climatecommunication.org/new/art ... /overview/


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:46 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20530
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:

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?


Tim. Care to talk facts rather than mind games.


Yes that is my point.

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:47 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20530
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
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! :mrgreen:
http://climatecommunication.org/new/art ... /overview/


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

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


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?

Quote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group