General Climate Discussion

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
If I did anything it wasn't rushing to a conclusion except that clouds do in fact reflect at least some of the sun's energy.

"it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds."

It's pretty well known.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
"it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds."

It's pretty well known.

I disagree. There are a lot of variables and the total effect of more clouds due to warmer air simply isn't known.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
I disagree. There are a lot of variables and the total effect of more clouds due to warmer air simply isn't known.

I'm sorry. How silly of me. I forgot. My providing a link explaining how that specific variable is actually a known is trumped by your repeating over and over that it isn't .... because you disagree.

My bad. Carry on.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sorry. How silly of me. I forgot. My providing a link explaining how that specific variable is actually a known is trumped by your repeating over and over that it isn't .... because you disagree.

My bad. Carry on.

I'm familiar with the link you posted but I'm not sure that you are. Perhaps you'd care to explain how an increase in clouds due to warmer air will play out over time exactly? Then perhaps you could quote something from the article you linked backing up your claim of this knowledge?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
I'm familiar with the link you posted but I'm not sure that you are. Perhaps you'd care to explain how an increase in clouds due to warmer air will play out over time exactly? Then perhaps you could quote something from the article you linked backing up your claim of this knowledge?

Sure, I'll help you. Glad you asked.

"The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is also thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth's surface."

Therefore if the increased reflectivity of one cloud (or group) can produce a significant masking effect on global warming (known as "global dimming") then, ergo, more clouds (increased reflectivity or not) would add to said, noted, monitored and documented effect.

Your "unknown" variable isn't as much a mystery as you would have it.

You're very welcome. I see this a a progressive step for the community here.

[Torque]

it's a good thing that the hysteria generated over man made global warming has got the ball rolling for lower pollution levels.

you don't have to be a scientist to understand the growing and more frequent smog lines we see everyday.

where i go camping up north you can't eat the liver from the deer due to acid rain. acid rain is taking a visible  toll in some other areas as well. new york states got tired of the epa and is suing private power corporations over the acid rain problems there.

the issue also seems to be good therapy for those duped on iraq.

so what's the downside?

[Angus]

Scandinavia got quite some of that too. Several thousands of "dead" lakes.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
Sure, I'll help you. Glad you asked.

"The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is also thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth's surface."

Therefore if the increased reflectivity of one cloud (or group) can produce a significant masking effect on global warming (known as "global dimming") then, ergo, more clouds (increased reflectivity or not) would add to said, noted, monitored and documented effect.

Your "unknown" variable isn't as much a mystery as you would have it.

You're very welcome. I see this a a progressive step for the community here.

That's about clouds formed based on pollutants. Even your quote mentions smaller droplets (than normally formed) being more reflective. Perhaps you weren't clear on my comment? We do not know what the cumulative effect will be from moister air due to air warming.

[lazs2]

arlo.. good to have you back... I had forgotten how worthless your posts always are.

torque..  what does it hurt?   well... it is like bad laws.   you make a lot of bad laws and people start ignoring all laws...

You make up a lot of bad science with political agendas and full of lies and people start not believing in scientists.  

The point, to get back to the original article is that more than half the meteoroligists no longer believe in significant MMGW.   that more and more are jumping ship all the time.

The left is playing a risky game here..  they have to get the taxation and social engineering in place before they are expossed.. before the whole house of cards  falls apart.   the companies making profits on "carbon credits" and such need to get going now.. a few years will be too late.. the fraud will be exposed.

the game is dangerous... last time they tried this faud with "the coming ice age"... no one listened to em for 30 years.

lazs

[Angus]

MMGW is one thing, GW is another, and that's where some 90%+ of the scientists share the same camp.
You, Lazs, are not a scientists, and neither am I. However, I have an edge on you, for I live where GW is very detectable as well as touching my profession, - and my educational background. You however (as well as some others here) seem to flush at very simple physics.
As for the "debunking", I haven't seen a debunk that wasn't already debunked yet. Like that Singer guy, or the film. Crap both of them, and uptosuch a level that one sees that there are desperate forces at work, who want us to belive that we should just carry on as we are, everything is just fine.
And as for water vapour, that is a very powerful greenhouse gas.

Anf finally, FYI, I am not in the "just the co2 emission camp".

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
You make up a lot of bad science with political agendas and full of lies and people start not believing in scientists.  

That is a such a perfect description of your approach to the whole topic that it sounds like a confession.  Freudian slip?

The point, to get back to the original article is that more than half the meteoroligists no longer believe in significant MMGW.   that more and more are jumping ship all the time.

You can't prove this statement though, can you.  Furthermore, as has been pointed out to you several times, meteorology and climatology are different disciplines.

the game is dangerous... last time they tried this faud with "the coming ice age"... no one listened to em for 30 years.

There you go again.  Repeat a lie enough times...

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKH
You can't prove this statement though, can you.  Furthermore, as has been pointed out to you several times, meteorology and climatology are different disciplines.

Of cource he cant, its made up. I proved it to him a few months back before I decided not to waste my time on him anymore. He ignored it/didnt understand what I said, and just went on rambling. Like he always does.

There is a huge consensus in the scientific community that global warming is happening. That is the bottom line, and that is the fact lazs and his ilk are trying to ignore. The latest method of disinformation they are using is claims that the IPCC is not made up of scientists (wrong) and that a majority of scientists do not believe global warming is happening (also wrong).

What they are left with right now is "more and more scientists doubt the global warming consensus", and while that might be true, it is not really an impressive argument since the number of doubters have gone from something like 2 to 5. And while that is a growth of sorts, it is still dwarfed by the rest of the scientific community and it is probably more an indication on how much money the polluting industry is using to buy scientists with than anything else. Like the guy in the original post of this article, who is in the pocket of big oil. Naturally scum like laz who dont understand the first thing of the science behind global warming tries to jump on that bandwaggon. Its as dishonest as it is stupid. But it is what one has come to expect from certain american posters.

[leitwolf]

except that the "scum" doesnt deny GW. He just denies that mankind is the decisive component in GW.

I find it quite ironic how lazs manages to get all those would-be experts with all their grades and qualifications into an ad-hominem rampage.

You'd think their case is solid enough to beat him with facts?

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by moot
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2003/climate-dec-9-2003.html

Hmm, the headline reads..."HUMANS BEGAN ALTERING GLOBAL CLIMATE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, STUDY SHOWS".

Then the first line of the article is..."  A new hypothesis suggests...".

I find the role of the media in all of this to be 'funny'. A bold headline (in red) that proclaims the sky is falling!!! Followed by a small bit of text say that, in fact, we think it might be.

While I believe that being environmentally responsible is a good thing. It would appear that some people have decided that it 'sells papers' to try and scare the crap out of people.

[lazs2]

angus...  I have an advantage over you... I live in an area where we can see that it is not a problem.. there has been no warming for 20 years by nasa data and.. no matter what... all the attacks asside..  there really hasn't been any global average warming for the last 7 years or so.  

hortlund and hoopy..   nooo... you miss the point.. there are no more scientists in any field that believe in MMGW than there are that don't.

There simply is no majority as you claim.   What is a climatologist?   how many are there and what has the poll of them shown?  it is a relatively new science .. they are simply an offshoot of metoroligists and use most of the same tools for their flawed computer models.

You can't say that there is a consensus of scientists that believe in MMGW...  just saying there is does not make it so.. just pointing to some left wing site that says there is does not make it so... the big UN deal ended up with only 50 scientists signing on to the final document...

no one has ever polled the scientific community but...  of the last 500 peer reviewed documents... only a fraction.. something like 6% say that man is causing significant global warming...  most say that we may or may not but it is not possible to say for sure...  another percent say our contribution is there but insignificant..  the rest say that even if we were.. there would be nothing we could do about it.

lazs