|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:28:40 GMT
soclod: "Not all clouds are equal. If I recall correctly ones higher up provide more of a warming effect than a cooling effect while lower ones provide the inverse." Well, that's a comprehensive understanding of clouds. Maybe you should pass that info on to the IPCC modelers. Apparently you have not read the article link: Why don't you read it? I doubt that realclimate has worked up their hysterical potshot refutation yet. Here is an excerpt: Pick it apart. If their climate model works they should produce the calculations to show it performs better than existing GCMs. They should also submit any specific case in the form of a paper to a journal if they think they can further understanding of clouds. I am not a climatologist. I have no desire or reason (or time) to take it apart. Science isn't furthered by posting theories on blogs. Pseudo-science is furtherd by posting theories on blogs (as creationist texts attest to). For example can you find the flaws in this: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-researchIf you can't does it prove it is correct and the Earth is only thousands of years old? Course not.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:33:09 GMT
Not all clouds are equal. If I recall correctly ones higher up provide more of a warming effect than a cooling effect while lower ones provide the inverse. You do not recall correctly or if you do its from a paper that is now outdated. It all depends on the cloud type - with high tropical convective clouds having significant 'negative forcing' (aka feedback) > 100Wm -2. Your source is too specific (single paper, one region of study) to have any bearing on the general topic of clouds effect on global climate. Try here for an overview instead: climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/clouds.php
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 16, 2009 18:52:36 GMT
soclod: "If you can't does it prove it is correct and the Earth is only thousands of years old?"
The old it ain't settled science, it's like Creationism BS again. So if it hasn't been peer-reviewed by your preferred AGW prisoner publications, it's doo-doo. Was Galileo peer reviewed? I know you are not a climatologist, but you offer your bogus opinion on everything else. Why not this paper? Or are you waiting for the realclimate Rebuttal For Dummies?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:58:27 GMT
soclod: "If you can't does it prove it is correct and the Earth is only thousands of years old?" The old it ain't settled science, it's like Creationism BS again. So if it hasn't been peer-reviewed by your preferred AGW prisoner publications, it's doo-doo. Was Galileo peer reviewed? I know you are not a climatologist, but you offer your bogus opinion on everything else. Why not this paper? Or are you waiting for the realclimate Rebuttal For Dummies? I offer my opinion on the simple level stuff. If someone claims volcanoes emit more co2 than humans then I can offer an opinion because it's simple enough to look it up. If someone claims the greenhouse effect can't work because it would violate the 2nd law, that's simple enough that I can offer my opinion. If someone claims climate models can be made to say anything, I can't go into the details of the models, but I can point out some facts that make such a claim hard to believe. I don't wade in when there are too many details because I am not an expert on climate. For the same reason that I wouldn't try to refute that Creationism article whcih goes into quite some detail of geology. It's too technical and it would take an expert (probably graduate geology or something) to spot the flaws in it that are inevitably there. So if your plan is to bamboozle me with technical stuff, it won't work, just as many a creationist has found out in the past. I will just point out the fact that it's too in depth for me to analyze it and that the place to present that kind of stuff is to peer review - ie get it into the faces of the experts who can analyze it and are the ones to convince. Not give it to socold on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 16, 2009 19:12:15 GMT
Your continuing attempts to equate skeptics on the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory with believers in creationism is not only ludicrous, it is backwards. But keep the faith, soclod.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 16, 2009 20:16:32 GMT
soclod: "If you can't does it prove it is correct and the Earth is only thousands of years old?" The old it ain't settled science, it's like Creationism BS again. So if it hasn't been peer-reviewed by your preferred AGW prisoner publications, it's doo-doo. Was Galileo peer reviewed? I know you are not a climatologist, but you offer your bogus opinion on everything else. Why not this paper? Or are you waiting for the realclimate Rebuttal For Dummies? I offer my opinion on the simple level stuff. If someone claims volcanoes emit more co2 than humans then I can offer an opinion because it's simple enough to look it up. If someone claims the greenhouse effect can't work because it would violate the 2nd law, that's simple enough that I can offer my opinion. If someone claims climate models can be made to say anything, I can't go into the details of the models, but I can point out some facts that make such a claim hard to believe. So you've seen the evidence. You calculated the absolute maximum amount of "back radiation" possible at with the current radiative output of atmospheric CO2...in a level that sits above 3/4 of the rest of the atmosphere...as 3.39watts. You KNOW that this coldest layer is sandwiched between two warmer layers and that any increase in its temperature at all would reduce the maximum greenhouse affect. You know that any increase in temperature will result in an exponential increase in radiative output. You've pointed out yourself that the overlap between CO2 and water vapor means that water vapor is responsible for over 90% of the affect ( V/S the much larger percentage, I think 26% for CO2 alone) So...how much of the already reduced warming affect are you saying we're supposed to feel just from this thin, outter layer of CO2 when even you claim water vapor has robbed it of most of its potential?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 16, 2009 21:07:12 GMT
poitsplace: "So...how much of the already reduced warming affect are you saying we're supposed to feel just from this thin, outter layer of CO2 when even you claim water vapor has robbed it of most of its potential?"
Don't answer that soclod. He is trying to bamboozle you with technical stuff.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 22:38:57 GMT
I offer my opinion on the simple level stuff. If someone claims volcanoes emit more co2 than humans then I can offer an opinion because it's simple enough to look it up. If someone claims the greenhouse effect can't work because it would violate the 2nd law, that's simple enough that I can offer my opinion. If someone claims climate models can be made to say anything, I can't go into the details of the models, but I can point out some facts that make such a claim hard to believe. So you've seen the evidence. You calculated the absolute maximum amount of "back radiation" possible at with the current radiative output of atmospheric CO2...in a level that sits above 3/4 of the rest of the atmosphere...as 3.39watts. You KNOW that this coldest layer is sandwiched between two warmer layers and that any increase in its temperature at all would reduce the maximum greenhouse affect. You know that any increase in temperature will result in an exponential increase in radiative output. You've pointed out yourself that the overlap between CO2 and water vapor means that water vapor is responsible for over 90% of the affect ( V/S the much larger percentage, I think 26% for CO2 alone) So...how much of the already reduced warming affect are you saying we're supposed to feel just from this thin, outter layer of CO2 when even you claim water vapor has robbed it of most of its potential? Don't confuse forcing with warming effect. For example a reduction in forcing from removing the co2 would cause a temperature drop, which would in turn reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere amplifying that temperature drop.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 16, 2009 22:45:16 GMT
So you've seen the evidence. You calculated the absolute maximum amount of "back radiation" possible at with the current radiative output of atmospheric CO2...in a level that sits above 3/4 of the rest of the atmosphere...as 3.39watts. You KNOW that this coldest layer is sandwiched between two warmer layers and that any increase in its temperature at all would reduce the maximum greenhouse affect. You know that any increase in temperature will result in an exponential increase in radiative output. You've pointed out yourself that the overlap between CO2 and water vapor means that water vapor is responsible for over 90% of the affect ( V/S the much larger percentage, I think 26% for CO2 alone) So...how much of the already reduced warming affect are you saying we're supposed to feel just from this thin, outter layer of CO2 when even you claim water vapor has robbed it of most of its potential? Don't confuse forcing with warming effect. For example a reduction in forcing from removing the co2 would cause a temperature drop, which would in turn reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere amplifying that temperature drop. And again, what is your best estimate (guestimate?) for just that small amount of increase once it trickles DOWN HERE for that increase up there at the edge of the radiative zone of CO2? Ignore feedbacks...what do you expect from what you say is a primary forcing (CO2 absorption)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 23:09:24 GMT
About 1C warming per co2 doubling
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 16, 2009 23:10:30 GMT
poitsplace: "And again, what is your best estimate (guestimate?) for just that small amount of increase once it trickles DOWN HERE for that increase up there at the edge of the radiative zone of CO2? Ignore feedbacks...what do you expect from what you say is a primary forcing (CO2 absorption)"
You are doing good soclod. Don't answer it. Keep dodging. Give him another example of something else. Don't fall for those old Creationist tricks.
I see I was too late. Why did you let him bamboozle you soclod?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 23:13:39 GMT
obvious troll doesn't like being ignored
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 16, 2009 23:24:08 GMT
I like you solclod. You are amusing. I like you so much I am going to save a seat for you on the Mother Ship. It will be leaving just before all that missing heat bursts out of the pipeline. At about 1:45 you will get a brief view of the vehicle that will deliver you from the Apocalypse: www.youtube.com/watch?v=99pY1wcXTh4I dated the thin girl singer back in my Super Fly period.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 17, 2009 3:26:30 GMT
About 1C warming per co2 doubling So...since it is unreasonable to assume greater than a 1 to 1 feedback, you agree that the top end on the IPCC estimates MUST be wrong and that the actual figures lie somewhere under a maximum of a 2C increase...and more likely under the error bars of the models (which would be feedback of about .7 to 1). Right?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 17, 2009 23:23:23 GMT
soclod,
You don't have to ignore the entire board just because you are mad at me. Come back and I will be nice to you, as long as you don't sling that Creationism crap around again.
|
|