Clouds cause Warming - New Study...

[CoolTraderDude]

This is a record of carbon for the last 650000 years....

This is a record of CO2 (ppmv) from the 1960s showing a 25% increase.

This is a rise in temperature since the 1880s...

AND... This is a picture of the Earth at night taken from space...!



You still think that humans aren't affecting climate change...?

What are all those lights there...? A concentration of fireflies...?

 

[pspr]

The correlation between temperature and CO2 is that CO2 lags warming. As the planet warms, it forces CO2 out of solution (the oceans).

You can post all the charts you want, it doesn't change the facts. CO2 is a trace gas with little, if any, affect on the earth's climate.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from jem:

Dr. Spencer... seems to include something for both sides of the debate in his summary.




http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/


Concluding Remarks

Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average…but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.

The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists!

Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.

Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, “we don’t really know”, rather than mislead people with phrases like, “the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2″, and then have the public think that means, “we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2″.

Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.

It looks as if you open the post by telling us that this "Dr. Spenser" fella is making arguments for both sides of the debate.

You then provide us with a link to whatever this "Dr. Spenser" dude is talking about, no?

You then give us your concluding remarks on the subject which has you saying that the man's co2 output has upset the earth's radiative energy budget by 1% over the last one hundred years, yes?

If the above statement belongs to someone else, you probably should have said something like, "Here is a quote from this DR. Spenser guy", and then put his words in quotation marks, right?

So I'm confused as to how I might have misquoted you.

 

[jem]

are you saying you did not realize that was a quote from the link I presented?

While I was not following formal dissertation rules... I would think it was clear to 99.999% of readers that the conclusion came from that link.

So when you quoted those sentences and attributed them to me I was like hey... I do not even know if that is true.

I quoted spencer because even though the agw nutters seem to despise... I think he approaches the subject like a true academic or scientist. He puts the info out there and then gives his take. He knows the difference between fact and opinion.

I think the reason why you hit on those points about the energy budget is because Dr. Spencer would probably say that CO2 has the potential for causing warming on earth... I think the question for him is whether man made CO2 causes significant warming.

Quote from Hoofhearted:

It looks as if you open the post by telling us that this "Dr. Spenser" fella is making arguments for both sides of the debate.

You then provide us with a link to whatever this "Dr. Spenser" dude is talking about, no?

You then give us your concluding remarks on the subject which has you saying that the man's co2 output has upset the earth's radiative energy budget by 1% over the last one hundred years, yes?

If the above statement belongs to someone else, you probably should have said something like, "Here is a quote from this DR. Spenser guy", and then put his words in quotation marks, right?

So I'm confused as to how I might have misquoted you.

 

[jem]

My argument... would be of course man impacts the earth. The earth is a dynamic complex system.

When we cut down forrests and put up crops... lighter crops would probably reflect heat... darker crops absorb it.

Then how much is radiated out and bounced back etc.

what we are seeing lately is that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses may act as a regulator rather than just a heater.

Quote from CoolTraderDude:

This is a record of carbon for the last 650000 years....

This is a record of CO2 (ppmv) from the 1960s showing a 25% increase.

This is a rise in temperature since the 1880s...

AND... This is a picture of the Earth at night taken from space...!



You still think that humans aren't affecting climate change...?

What are all those lights there...? A concentration of fireflies...?

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from jem:

are you saying you did not realize that was a quote from the link I presented?

While I was not following formal dissertation rules... I would think it was clear to 99.999% of readers that the conclusion came from that link.

So when you quoted those sentences and attributed them to me I was like hey... I do not even know if that is true.

I quoted spencer because even though the agw nutters seem to despise... I think he approaches the subject like a true academic or scientist. He puts the info out there and then gives his take. He knows the difference between fact and opinion.

I think the reason why you hit on those points about the energy budget is because Dr. Spencer would probably say that CO2 has the potential for causing warming on earth... I think the question for him is whether man made CO2 causes significant warming.

I'm not sure what country you are from (although by your speech, I would say it is a country that teaches english as its first or second language), but here in America we teach and remember to use proper communication skills.

It is important that we clarify things for our colleagues and/or audience and be sure give credit when we repeat words that come from others.

Using quotation, and/or at least saying "In the words of such and such" greatly helps to cut down on confusion, especially when your intent here seems to be to convey your own ideas as well.



On the other hand, one thing seems pretty clear to me:

Anyone who has any basic scientific knowledge about the technology involved in measuring the radiative energy budget of the earth, will know that the instruments used to determine such outputs a century ago were at best feeble, and completely unreliable by today's scientific standards.

So it would seem likely to me to me that most reputable science enthusiasts of today would agree with me and quickly realize that this "Doc Spencer" character is an overt quack.

For you to support his endeavors and promote such outlandish propaganda as a 1% difference in the earth's radiative energy budget over the course of a century, tells me something more about yourself than anything you could have quoted from Doc Spencer.
It tells me you are lacking two of the most important attributes a man of science could have- the desire to understand the truth, and the ability to scrutinize for it.

Try focusing on these two concepts for a while, then work on your written communication skills before you come back with your retorts on the effects of man made co2, please.

 

[CoolTraderDude]

Quote from pspr:

The correlation between temperature and CO2 is that CO2 lags warming. As the planet warms, it forces CO2 out of solution (the oceans).

You can post all the charts you want, it doesn't change the facts. CO2 is a trace gas with little, if any, affect on the earth's climate.

Well that happens to be wrong...


Dr. R. Spencer isn't exactly unbiased...

Energy lost to space as compared to climate models

In 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper in Remote Sensing concluding that more energy is radiated back to space and released earlier than previously thought.[14][15] Spencer stated, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."[15][16][17]

The paper was criticized by mainstream climate scientists.[18][19] Kerry Emanuel of MIT, said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback.[18]

The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."[21] Wagner added he, "would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements".[20][21]

Spencer responded that Wagner's assertion was wholly inaccurate, "But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself."[22]

Andrew Dessler later published a paper opposing the claims of Spencer and Braswell (2011) in Geophysical Research Letters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

He's basically a guy espousing a minority view and trying to make a name for himself playing the role of "Devil's Advocate"...

But all you pro Global Warming (who think more CO2 is good for us) and pro pollution guys don't have to worry about it... It's too late to do anything about it anyway... There's no stopping it... Hopefully we'll reach some new equilibrium where life as we know it can still go on... but I'm betting that we won't.

It was 280 ppm in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 400 ppm (parts per million) as of May 2013,[3] with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[4] About 57% of the CO2 emissions go to increase the atmospheric level, with much of the remainder contributing to ocean acidification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

So as you can tell... we're fucked....!

 

[pspr]

Quote from CoolTraderDude:

Well that happens to be wrong...


Dr. R. Spencer isn't exactly unbiased...

LOL. You keep espousing the wrong science, the junk science so you wouldn't know what is wrong and what is right.

And the sources you present are unbiased? Get a life Dude.

You need to learn a little about solar which is the primary driver of our climate and the PDO and AMO cycles.

Once you learn some real science you can come back. So, until you take the time to learn some truth about climate, don't bother to post your junk science here.

 

[CoolTraderDude]

Quote from pspr:

LOL. You keep espousing the wrong science, the junk science so you wouldn't know what is wrong and what is right.

And the sources you present are unbiased? Get a life Dude.

You need to learn a little about solar which is the primary driver of our climate and the PDO and AMO cycles.

Once you learn some real science you can come back. So, until you take the time to learn some truth about climate, don't bother to post your junk science here.

Look at this AMO chart... The temperature drops from the 1960s to the 1980s...

Notice that the temperature and CO2 trend continue to increase from the 1960s to the 1980s even as the AMO temperature drops from the 1960s to the 1980s in the above charts... So two decades of AMO cooling had no effect on either temperature or CO2 increase...

After that they correlate and both increase...

When looking at PDO...

PDO temperature does rise from the 1960s onwards but peaks in the 1990s and drops off... This is not the case in our carbon emmissions or in our overall global temperature increase. Both CO2 and temperature continue to increase...

That's really pretty good evidence that the warming is caused by the CO2 as both the warming and the CO2 increase are independent of normal cycles.

 

[jem]

1. I cut and paste and present a link. Which is more than some people and pretty much what I think is the right amount of attribution for a internet forum. Your suggested rules might be better but they would take more time than I allow... at times.

If I wish to present a scientific discovery... which would be unlikely since my degrees are not in science... I will follow the proper format and maybe log it at that dartmouth library or that other place where hawking logged a few papers.

2. If you are concerned about the CO2 effect on the radiative budget... you might want to watch this video... pay particular attention to when he sums things up in the last 20 minutes... particularly the last 10...



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2ROw_cDKwc0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


after seeing that video I am sure you will agree the real quacks are the ones pretending there is science showing man made CO2 causes warming on earth. its all a guess.

Quote from Hoofhearted:

I'm not sure what country you are from (although by your speech, I would say it is a country that teaches english as its first or second language), but here in America we teach and remember to use proper communication skills.

It is important that we clarify things for our colleagues and/or audience and be sure give credit when we repeat words that come from others.

Using quotation, and/or at least saying "In the words of such and such" greatly helps to cut down on confusion, especially when your intent here seems to be to convey your own ideas as well.



On the other hand, one thing seems pretty clear to me:

Anyone who has any basic scientific knowledge about the technology involved in measuring the radiative energy budget of the earth, will know that the instruments used to determine such outputs a century ago were at best feeble, and completely unreliable by today's scientific standards.

So it would seem likely to me to me that most reputable science enthusiasts of today would agree with me and quickly realize that this "Doc Spencer" character is an overt quack.

For you to support his endeavors and promote such outlandish propaganda as a 1% difference in the earth's radiative energy budget over the course of a century, tells me something more about yourself than anything you could have quoted from Doc Spencer.
It tells me you are lacking two of the most important attributes a man of science could have- the desire to understand the truth, and the ability to scrutinize for it.

Try focusing on these two concepts for a while, then work on your written communication skills before you come back with your retorts on the effects of man made co2, please.