Climate sensitivity

Nice strawmanm. I didnt say it has no effect. I said it has little effect. What you feel on a cloudy night isnt reflected IR its the inversion layer blocking convection.

 

When it doesn't matter to the earth's heat balance. Seriously, do you really think reflecting back a somewhat higher fraction of the earth's night-time IR emissions matters AT ALL relative to the fraction of incident solar radiation clouds reflect back out into space during the day??? REALLY???

 

Mannies argument is actually very much a microcosm of warmmonger thinking. Hw thinks that because a physical phenomenon exists it must be the cause. In the case of global warming he assumes that because the greenhouse gas effect exists that it must be the cause of catastrophic AGW. Its a reduction fallacy followed by an extrapolation falacy. We reduce the climate system to CO2 and we then extrapolate from that reduction.

Now look at what MannieD is arguing with night time clouds. MannieD argues that because low level reflect some IR clouds that must be why its warmer at night. No other dynamic is considered. MannieD then extrapolates that reduction out to the conclusion that cloud feedback is positive.

Degree of effect is ignored and all that mattets is reduction followed by extrapolation. The fact that the IR effect is minuscule when compared to the convection blanket is ignored.

 

Good! We agree: nighttime clouds are a positive feedback.
And you have your definition of inversion backward. Normal profile is cooler as you go higher. Inversion is a colder layer at the earth's surface, ie colder to warmer. So you need a clear night to create an inversion; not a cloudy night, because on a clear night the earth loses its heat faster due to (wait for it)










radiatonal cooling.

 

No it doesn't at all because

#1 down welling IR throughout the day far less than the albedo of the cloud.

#2 when the inversion oayer dissipates warm air convects away. The temporary inversion layer has no long term effect.

 

Simple and obvious but not partaking of the kind of the ideological obscurities that give it credence to some folks. Mystical mumbo jumbo crystal ball stuff is what sells.

 

The climatologists have to decide whether the climate is warming or cooling. It is even plausible the planet would naturally be cooling were it not for the man-made CO2 emissions. If the planet cools, then much of the rainfall water will become locked in Arctic glaciers, leading to drier, not greener conditions with a massive deforestation which is what happened in Pleistocene wiping out game such as this:

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/#/watch?v=sLDzMIzr740

Or go to YouTube search and type in "scientists uncover jaw of giant elephant".

Personally, I am confused. There were multiple reports that glaciers are melting, yet last year the ice cover in Antarctica has vastly increased. There are varying reports some pacific islands may be sinking, yet are they sinking due to increasing sea levels or due to land subduction like in Venice?

 

They have decided it is warming over the longer term largely due to human caused greenhouse gasses and there are all sorts of graphs showing that starting in 1880 when they began measurements.

The natural trend would be downward except for AGW. That has been the general trend going back I believe at least 6000 years. But the trend is very slow and we have more than overcome it with our inducing a very rapid upward temperature trend with all our carbon gas exhaust and tree cutting.

Ice over the Antarctica land mass is decreasing. Ice in the surrounding Antarctica ocean is increasing. This piece discusses the matter.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

It's good to see the IPCC is getting more realistic about climate sensitivity.

 

Wow! Youtube is the ultimate scientific expert eh????

You tube has considerably LESS validity, ethical and moral standing and therefor truth level than a Bangladeshi advertising agency

 

YouTube isn't "scientific" at all and doesn't claim to be, it's a website where any video can be stored for retrieval by anyone.

Saying that it has "considerably LESS validity, ethical and moral standing and therefor[sic] truth level than a Bangladeshi advertising agency," is probably the most silly comment I've read in a long time.

 

Why? What is there on you tube that is scientifically valid? Is there a criteria for determination of such? (Have my own opinions but waiting for others to think about this)

Just recently we had a member on here absolutely convinced there was intelligent life on Mars because he had seen the You Tube pictures……..

 

I really don't think I need to explain.

It's entirely at the viewer's discretion to to make that judgement call.

Research.

Go for it, don't be shy.

"There's nowt so queer as folk."

 

Okay then - so how many you tube presentations use academic referencing - or indeed any referencing at all? Do they even include a Bibliography?

 

YouTube is a searchable video library, just ask Google, or your preferred search engine.

If you want scientific videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScienceChannel

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-science-youtube-channels-you-cant-miss/

https://www.google.es/search?q=yout...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=NpOlUvuYM-6S7AagvIHgAg

 

That is not answering the question - is there any referencing? Can you independently check the source of the data?

 

When you find out, please let me know.

 

IPCC are the proverbial 100 monkeys banging on typewriters hoping to duplicate Shakespeare. They make tons of noise and consume a lot of resources that could be used elsewhere and nothing of value ever comes from their efforts

 

Old Pach isn't doing well in an attempt to better Romeo and Juliet:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html

That could be said about most governmental organisations.

 

Sooooo insightful!!

So, why should anyone take note of one opinion? Especially one that has no relevance to………………..well, anything really

 

Bowerbird's right, no one should take notice of any one opinion, even if others agree with it.

 

Yep - without FACTS it is merely opinion

And the denialists have precious few unadulterated facts to muster

Almost no research

And not even physics is on their side

That is why we see so many posts telling us that "Climate changes just, well, because it DOES - it doesn't need a reason - it can change if it wants to!!"

 

I'll admit to denying that the C in CAGW is meaningful.

What are sceptics

exactly?

1. Sceptics don't

climate, therefore cannot be

2. Sceptics don't

that climate changes, therefore cannot be

3. Sceptics don't

that Earth has warmed by 0.74º C over the last 162 years, therefore cannot be

4. Sceptics don't

that climate science exists, therefore cannot be

5. Sceptics don't

that CO2 can cause a small amount of warming, therefore cannot be

6. Sceptics don't

anything, we're sceptical of the inaccurate figures bandied about by alarmists and very sceptical of the scary catastrophe stories about everything and anything.
We're also justifiably sceptical of computer models.

So, catastrophists, man up and spill the beans, what do you believe sceptics are actually

if you know, of course?

 

Without facts opinion remains opinion

97% of scientists agree

 

97% of climate scientists just to get that clarified. And as far as I know no significant scientific organization of any specialty anywhere takes a denialist position. Even the petroleum scientists, I understand, finally caved back in the late 90s.