|
Post by sigurdur on May 28, 2016 18:23:25 GMT
Can't acknowledge that Svensmark was onto something could they?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 29, 2016 3:14:23 GMT
NOCTILUCENT CLOUD SEASON BEGINS: It's official. The 2016 season for noctilucent clouds is underway. NASA's AIM spacecraft spotted them on May 24th, and now observers on the ground are seeing them, too. Andy Stables sends this picture from Milovaig on the Isle of Skye, Scotland: spaceweather.com/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 2, 2016 17:37:12 GMT
climate.nasa.gov/news/2440/A new NASA analysis of 30-years of satellite data suggests that a previously observed trend of high altitude clouds in the mid-latitudes shifting toward the poles is caused primarily by the expansion of the tropics. Clouds are among the most important mediators of heat reaching Earth's surface. Where clouds are absent, darker surfaces like the ocean or vegetated land absorb heat, but where clouds occur, their white tops reflect incoming sunlight away, which can cause a cooling effect on Earth’s surface. Where and how the distribution of cloud patterns change strongly affects Earth's climate. Understanding the underlying causes of cloud migration will allow researchers to better predict how they may affect Earth's climate in the future
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 2, 2016 21:19:14 GMT
climate.nasa.gov/news/2440/A new NASA analysis of 30-years of satellite data suggests that a previously observed trend of high altitude clouds in the mid-latitudes shifting toward the poles is caused primarily by the expansion of the tropics. Clouds are among the most important mediators of heat reaching Earth's surface. Where clouds are absent, darker surfaces like the ocean or vegetated land absorb heat, but where clouds occur, their white tops reflect incoming sunlight away, which can cause a cooling effect on Earth’s surface. Where and how the distribution of cloud patterns change strongly affects Earth's climate. Understanding the underlying causes of cloud migration will allow researchers to better predict how they may affect Earth's climate in the future I can understand the logic of the Hadley cell thingamagiggy, particularly on its poleward side. But how do they account for low-level cloud decline in the equatorial zone itself?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 3, 2016 2:47:54 GMT
This has more to do with the Iris effect presented by Dr. Lindzen. His paper was not welcomed by fellow AGW folks. But time and observations have proven him correct.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 3, 2016 15:14:33 GMT
www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studiesShare 1K 171 Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies Federico Bianchi (pictured) and colleagues took the CLOUD instrumentation into the Alps to show sulfur dioxide wasn't needed to make aerosols. Federico Bianchi Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies By Tim WoganMay. 25, 2016 , 2:45 PM Clouds need to condense around small particles called aerosols to form, and human aerosol pollution—primarily in the form of sulfuric acid—has made for cloudier skies. That’s why scientists have generally assumed Earth’s ancient skies were much sunnier than they are now. But today, three new studies show how naturally emitted gases from trees can also form the seed particles for clouds. The results not only point to a cloudier past, but they also indicate a potentially cooler future: If Earth’s climate is less sensitive to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise as quickly as predicted.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 3, 2016 16:25:53 GMT
www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studiesShare 1K 171 Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies Federico Bianchi (pictured) and colleagues took the CLOUD instrumentation into the Alps to show sulfur dioxide wasn't needed to make aerosols. Federico Bianchi Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies By Tim WoganMay. 25, 2016 , 2:45 PM Clouds need to condense around small particles called aerosols to form, and human aerosol pollution—primarily in the form of sulfuric acid—has made for cloudier skies. That’s why scientists have generally assumed Earth’s ancient skies were much sunnier than they are now. But today, three new studies show how naturally emitted gases from trees can also form the seed particles for clouds. The results not only point to a cloudier past, but they also indicate a potentially cooler future: If Earth’s climate is less sensitive to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise as quickly as predicted. More importantly, future temperatures may cool a lot faster than expected.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 6, 2018 18:52:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2018 1:57:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2018 17:07:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 13, 2018 20:32:34 GMT
I might have to update the data from the mother article referenced (August 2016). From the comments (not for the first time) one gets the impression that Dr Svalgaard doesn't think much of Dr Archibald's analysis.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2018 21:00:07 GMT
I do believe your impression is correct in regards to Dr. Svalgaard's opinion of Dr. Archibald's analysis.
The beauty is....there is disagreement without being virulent!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 13, 2018 23:27:33 GMT
I might have to update the data from the mother article referenced (August 2016). From the comments (not for the first time) one gets the impression that Dr Svalgaard doesn't think much of Dr Archibald's analysis. Svalgaard or Svensmark?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 13, 2018 23:38:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 14, 2018 11:19:27 GMT
I might have to update the data from the mother article referenced (August 2016). From the comments (not for the first time) one gets the impression that Dr Svalgaard doesn't think much of Dr Archibald's analysis. Svalgaard or Svensmark? Both, Svensmark's hypothesis on galactic cosmic rays was 'rejected out of hand'. Archibald's analyses get similar treatment. The strength of SC25 will be an interesting test. This blank look is a little early and if it extends much longer could become worrying for SC25 forecasters
|
|