canndo
Well-Known Member
You are going to have to be more specific.
Climate Change? Of course. Which way?
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
You are going to have to be more specific.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Canndo, all the bread crumbs you need are documented in this thread. Cloud Effect. I can't do this homework for you. It's a very deep subject that has been sweep under the rug long enough that you don't know about it. But, it's been known about. It's the dirty little secret the GW movement has buried and otherwise shouted down. As you say, follow the money. Just read the material I've posted and see for yourself. Cheers.
canndo
Well-Known Member
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
A Positive Outlook For Clouds
The effect of clouds in a warming world is a difficult one to predict. One challenge is that clouds have both warming and cooling effects. Low-level clouds in particular tend to cause a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight, while high-level clouds tend to cause a warming effect by trapping heat.
So as the planet warms, clouds can have a cooling effect if the amount of low-level clouds increases and/or if the amount of high-level clouds decreases. Clouds will have a warming effect if the opposite is true. Thus it becomes complicated to figure out the overall effect of clouds, because scientists need to determine not only if the amount of clouds increases or decreases in a warming world, but which types of clouds are increasing or decreasing.
For climate scientists who are skeptical that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will cause a dangerous amount of warming, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, their skepticism hinges mainly on this cloud cover uncertainty. They tend to believe that as the planet warms, low-level cloud cover will increase, thus increasing the overall reflectiveness of the Earth, offsetting the increased greenhouse effect and preventing a dangerous level of global warming from occurring. However, some recent scientific studies have contradicted this theory.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Huh? I listed studies, in detail. We can't let you get by with a throwaway line liike this. " However, some recent scientific studies have contradicted this theory." And aren't you just posting the comments of the Forbes article? That was dis-allowed by the one guy that,
though silent now, quite fairly, asked for the peer reviewed text, which I provided a link to.
"You've bracketed the target but no bullseye ... between raw feed and chewed cud ... peer-reviewed publications by the pros. cn"
In science, we quote the studies if we make the claims. The recent studies, from this year, since I was asked for the most current, are very clear. No one has yet to come forward with a model showing negative feedback that agrees with the satelite data. That's just one point about Cloud Effect. If GW can't be modeled with Cloud Effect to match current data, that means we are not able to acurrately predict GW, right?
though silent now, quite fairly, asked for the peer reviewed text, which I provided a link to.
"You've bracketed the target but no bullseye ... between raw feed and chewed cud ... peer-reviewed publications by the pros. cn"
In science, we quote the studies if we make the claims. The recent studies, from this year, since I was asked for the most current, are very clear. No one has yet to come forward with a model showing negative feedback that agrees with the satelite data. That's just one point about Cloud Effect. If GW can't be modeled with Cloud Effect to match current data, that means we are not able to acurrately predict GW, right?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Throwaway line? Did you read the whole article? Did you see where the recent studies show the cloud effect is net positive FB? Didn't think so.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Of course, I read it. I posted it. I also familarized myself with the CLOUD study from CERN. That's what the article is about.
So, I'll say again, there is no real accepted evidence for positive or negative FB with Cloud Effect. The models don't align with the data.
My stance all along is that we don't know. I don't have to prove GW doesn't exist. But, I can easily raise resonable doubt.
It's there for anyone to see.
I do this to counter the smug, nasty ass attitude, that I see coming form the GW cult. The cult has usurped the science.
I set this thread to counter the factless claims this GW business is a Done Deal. I tire of the bullying. I want to confront all the
uniformed torch bearers of the cult, that are too lazy to think for themselves. The fact that so many here will jump in
w/ shrill and insulting comments, proves my point, I'd say.
So, I'll say again, there is no real accepted evidence for positive or negative FB with Cloud Effect. The models don't align with the data.
My stance all along is that we don't know. I don't have to prove GW doesn't exist. But, I can easily raise resonable doubt.
It's there for anyone to see.
I do this to counter the smug, nasty ass attitude, that I see coming form the GW cult. The cult has usurped the science.
I set this thread to counter the factless claims this GW business is a Done Deal. I tire of the bullying. I want to confront all the
uniformed torch bearers of the cult, that are too lazy to think for themselves. The fact that so many here will jump in
w/ shrill and insulting comments, proves my point, I'd say.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You say you read it but then criticize me for a single line in the middle of the article and ask if it was from Forbes? No, you didn't read the link I posted before you criticized it.
Except that all of the evidence seems to point to a positive effect. Saying we don't know is disingenuous.
As opposed to the non-science and rabid partisanship coming from the 'skeptics.'
You are the only shrill commenter I have seen. No one claims it is a 'done deal' that's another mischaracterization by whackos that don't understand what scientific consensus means. As you know, scientific consensus can be overturned but it will be done by other scientists, not by bloggers criticizing the scientist's methods from afar.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Blah, Blah fight boy... Post the science, please. Blog and articles are specifically useless, as are websites of the Cheering Section. And check your foul, combative attitude at the door.
I won't be playing the, "and so are you" ,' oh, you are the worst one," game. Personal bullying. Nor will I answer any kind of bullish right-fight, point by point.
Let's discuss the science. You copy pasted the Forbes article quote without referencing the "recent studies." And now you are telling me I lie about reading it. Doesn't further the scientific perusal, in the least.
Why don't you comment on the Cloud Model Conference stuff I posted. It's quite interesting, IMO.
I won't be playing the, "and so are you" ,' oh, you are the worst one," game. Personal bullying. Nor will I answer any kind of bullish right-fight, point by point.
Let's discuss the science. You copy pasted the Forbes article quote without referencing the "recent studies." And now you are telling me I lie about reading it. Doesn't further the scientific perusal, in the least.
Why don't you comment on the Cloud Model Conference stuff I posted. It's quite interesting, IMO.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I have no idea where in the Forbes article the quote that you are referring to is but the article I posted was not from Forbes and had no less than 4 citations with links to the actual science. Somehow you thought I posted a quote from the article you posted but I did not. If you can't be bothered to click a link and see for yourself, I'm not sure how I can help.
Here's more from What is the net feedback from clouds?:
In short, while much more research of the cloud-climate feedback is needed, the evidence is building against those who argue for a strongly negative cloud feedback. It's also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low.
Brick Top
New Member
If you honestly believe that 97% consensus crap this is your lucky day! I happen to own a really nice bridge that connects two boroughs of New York, those being Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'm getting older and I don't get many chances to go up there and enjoy it anymore so I have been considering selling it and I will sell it to you for a very reasonable price. I like to call it the Brooklyn Bridge but once yours you could of course rename it anything you would like. After all, it would be yours so you would have that right so you could rename it after yourself! If interested be sure to PM me.
Have you not heard about Climategate and now the sequel, Climategate 2? Recently another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University​—​ground zero of “Climategate I” in 2009 were released​. They have been even more damning than the originals.
Here is a little bit that touches on the consensus lie.
One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.
In the editing process before the IPCC’s 2001 third assessment report, Timothy Carter of the Finnish Environmental Institute wrote in 2000 to three chapter authors with the observation, “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” In this case, decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short “summary for policy makers”​—​usually the only part of the IPCC’s multivolume reports that the media and politicians read​—​required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around. This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the “consensus” recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”
Wake up and smell the Mango Haze, dude! Man made or man driven global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the citizens of this rock we all live on.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Your attitude sucks and that's how you drive the debate so foul. You just posted part of an article. And you quoted me and my reference (only) to the Forbes article.
So, just stlck the the science please. The junk from the cheering section "the evidence is building", etc? That just means to me the focus of the bullying has lasered onto this since it's the Achilles Heel. It reminds me of how fast the GW crowd, mostly meat eaters, abandoned methane as a green house gas. The "studies" showed cows as the culprit. Woops. CO2 is much more prevasive, so vague to measure and not tied to a food source.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You know, I tried to discuss this with you in good faith. Obviously you don't care to return the favor.
Yes, I posted part of an article, we cannot post complete articles because then it becomes copyright infringement and there have been websites that receive takedown notices after wholesale copying of another website. That's why I posted a link to the whole article including all of the references for you to check. As I said, if you can't be bothered to actually click the links I provide, then I can't help.
However, since you are acting like such a prick, not once responding to the science in the links I posted but instead launch personal attacks against me, I will no longer participate. Go get
someone else.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
After having read your and mindphuk's posts, Doer, I cannot agree with your assignment of the seat of "foul attitude". Where has Mindphuk descended to an ad hominem attack? Where has Mindphuk anticipayed a possible rebuttal (effectively putting words into the mouth of an interlocutor)? You have done both repeatedly.
Effective, civil debate has rules. I see Mindphuk hewing to those rules. I don't see you doing the same.
OK something technical. I have been reading about methane. At this time it has been assigned a specific greenhouse effectiveness 25 times that of CO2 per unit of concentration. Carbon dioxide is near or at 390 ppm, whereas methane is now near or at 1.8 ppm. So if the relative greenhouse effectiveness number is good, methane's effect is aboit 11.35% that of CO2, and 10.something % of the combined effect of the two. Negligible? maybe not. Significant? Also ... maybe not. Imo, no point setting mousetraps when the real problem is rats. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
"You are the only shrill commenter I have seen."
That, sir, is ad hominem. And though Mr. H "likes" your comment, he's well aware of how these attacks begin. I decided long ago to just fight this passive aggressive with aggressive. Make the PA types very nervous. And cn, you didn't notice where the personal attacks began?
Look through my exchange with H. also, on the other Thread. I notice he, too, is silent about Cloud Effect. So loud before.
The PA/PC approach is how the GW cult wants us personally insulted, if we don't agree. It's Thuggery. Tyranny. As soon as I was a lost in the article war trying to figure out what the Phuck he was talking about, I was called the lie, twice.
Re-read, cn. You set the tone but now you're changing stripes?
Most of it was a simple mis-understanding about which part of which article he means with his brief, un-explained approach of just posting links and snips.
Then he smears about me not reading it when he posted reference, only, to the article that YOU objected to. But, throws in a link and snip, un-referenced.
YOU wanted just the science posted, YOU acted strictly neutral, but never said a word about the Cloud Effect research I dug up for YOU.
Seems funny now that you want step in to scold me and not object to the no science /no peer review, Cheering Section articles of someone else. Foul. And, somehow, you don't seem so neutral now.
Phuck, if you would knock off the PA/PC you would be a better debater. H, same for you. Bullying is not debating.
That, sir, is ad hominem. And though Mr. H "likes" your comment, he's well aware of how these attacks begin. I decided long ago to just fight this passive aggressive with aggressive. Make the PA types very nervous. And cn, you didn't notice where the personal attacks began?
Look through my exchange with H. also, on the other Thread. I notice he, too, is silent about Cloud Effect. So loud before.
The PA/PC approach is how the GW cult wants us personally insulted, if we don't agree. It's Thuggery. Tyranny. As soon as I was a lost in the article war trying to figure out what the Phuck he was talking about, I was called the lie, twice.
Re-read, cn. You set the tone but now you're changing stripes?
Most of it was a simple mis-understanding about which part of which article he means with his brief, un-explained approach of just posting links and snips.
Then he smears about me not reading it when he posted reference, only, to the article that YOU objected to. But, throws in a link and snip, un-referenced.
YOU wanted just the science posted, YOU acted strictly neutral, but never said a word about the Cloud Effect research I dug up for YOU.
Seems funny now that you want step in to scold me and not object to the no science /no peer review, Cheering Section articles of someone else. Foul. And, somehow, you don't seem so neutral now.
Phuck, if you would knock off the PA/PC you would be a better debater. H, same for you. Bullying is not debating.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Heh, you call someone on ad hominem and then poison the well
.
The point is that what you are doing is not debating as accepted by academic standards, and that is why academics refuse to debate you. This is how most reasonable people eventually respond to conspiracy theorists. You use debate as an excuse to go into your song and dance, and it never changes.
*BUDS
Well-Known Member
Your quoting bullshit studies you silly little nerd, "oh dont come on our science forums!!", you little fuckwit what would you know about science? mmmm?. You didnt answer the Q ,do you have more knowledge on climate science than 97% of the worlds scientists? This "no such thing as mmgm " has been invented by big US corp, oil,coal co. etc so they can continue destroying the planet to make a profit and you and plenty of others are falling for thier bullshit.
*BUDS
Well-Known Member
Nothing but a true right wing cocksucker this guy.Crap invented by republicans and you believe it. Your posts are always full of shit old man.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You're making no sense. You haven't even commented on the articles or the science in the links that I posted. You just seem content to continue to argue that I am not posting links properly or whatever the fuck you're going on about.