clouds and climate

[Old Rocks]

An interesting article
The Effect of Clouds on Climate: A Key Mystery for Researchers by Michael D. Lemonick: Yale Environment 360

“I’m as skeptical as any other scientist,” says Clement. “I still ask myself, ‘Do I really believe this global warming thing?’ I can’t just give students the party line. But the conclusion I come to is that it’s really hard to see anything in the data or models that suggest clouds can overwhelm the effects of CO2 on temperature.”

 

[westwall]

Well at least they're making public what they don't know. Of course more legitimate scientists have known about the "problem" for a very long time.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf

Rudd throws more billions down a hole in the ground | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

The 2007-2008 Global Cooling Event: Evidence for Clouds as the Cause Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The Thermostat Hypothesis | Watts Up With That?

There are quite literally hundreds more articles on clouds but these (and the links they have) will get you started quite nicely.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since when has Watts been a legitimate scientist?

 

[Old Rocks]

Herald Sun Andrew Blog?

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps Dr. Spencer should have a look at the fact that there was also a La Nina and a solar minumum going on at the same time. And even then, 2008 was still only the tenth warmest year on record.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And of course, you'll have no trouble showing us in a laboratory setting how a 67% increase in CO2 caused the warming, right?

 

[konradv]

And of course, you'll have no trouble showing us in a laboratory setting how a 67% increase in CO2 caused the warming, right?

Not at all, thank you.

 

[westwall]

Since when has Watts been a legitimate scientist?

Hmmmmm, lets see....the author of the first article is Dr. Henrik Svensmark and this is his wiki bio for the research impaired. Looks like a pretty legit scientist to me.

Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI), a part of the Danish National Space Center. He previously headed the sun-climate group at DSRI. He held postdoctoral positions in physics at three other organizations: University of California, Berkeley, Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute.[1]

In 1997, Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen popularised a theory that linked galactic cosmic rays and global climate change mediated primarily by variations in the intensity of the solar wind, which they have termed cosmoclimatology. This theory had earlier been reviewed by Dickinson.[2] One of the small-scale processes related to this link was studied in a laboratory experiment performed at the Danish National Space Center (paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, February 8, 2007).

Svensmark's research downplays the significance to which atmospheric CO2 has affected recent global warming.

 

[westwall]

Herald Sun Andrew Blog?

Reporting from a legit scientist. I would assume that's OK with you seeings's how you do it all the time. Or do you follow a different set of rules?

 

[Old Rocks]

Since when has Watts been a legitimate scientist?

Hmmmmm, lets see....the author of the first article is Dr. Henrik Svensmark and this is his wiki bio for the research impaired. Looks like a pretty legit scientist to me.

Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI), a part of the Danish National Space Center. He previously headed the sun-climate group at DSRI. He held postdoctoral positions in physics at three other organizations: University of California, Berkeley, Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute.[1]

In 1997, Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen popularised a theory that linked galactic cosmic rays and global climate change mediated primarily by variations in the intensity of the solar wind, which they have termed cosmoclimatology. This theory had earlier been reviewed by Dickinson.[2] One of the small-scale processes related to this link was studied in a laboratory experiment performed at the Danish National Space Center (paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, February 8, 2007).

Svensmark's research downplays the significance to which atmospheric CO2 has affected recent global warming.

Almost all studies since then can find little to link cosmic rays and global warming.

Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds

Unlikely that cosmic rays affect global warming

There are scientific uncertanties about cosmic rays and cloud formation. Some researchers have claimed that a reduction of cosmic rays during the last decades has contributed to the global temperature rise. The hypothesis is that fewer cosmic rays causes fewer cloud droplets and reduced droplet size, and that this again causes global warming, since reduced cloud droplets would reflect less energy from the sun back to space. However, the researchers who stick to this hypothesis find little support amongst colleagues.

“According to our research, it does not look like reduced cosmic rays leads to reduced cloud formation”, says Jon Egill Kristjansson, a professor at the University of Oslo.

This result is in line with most other research in the field. As far as Kristjansson knows, no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.

Kristjansson also points out that most research shows no reduction in cosmic rays during the last decades, and that an astronomic explanation of today’s global warming therefore seems very unlikely

 

[Old Rocks]

Herald Sun Andrew Blog?

Reporting from a legit scientist. I would assume that's OK with you seeings's how you do it all the time. Or do you follow a different set of rules?

First, it is not an article on global warming, and, second, I think that it is a waste of money. Just shut the damned coal fired plants down, use the money that would have been spent on coal and remedying the problems that burning coal causes to build thermal solar plants. Australia is the ideal place for that technology.

 

[westwall]

Herald Sun Andrew Blog?

Reporting from a legit scientist. I would assume that's OK with you seeings's how you do it all the time. Or do you follow a different set of rules?

First, it is not an article on global warming, and, second, I think that it is a waste of money. Just shut the damned coal fired plants down, use the money that would have been spent on coal and remedying the problems that burning coal causes to build thermal solar plants. Australia is the ideal place for that technology.

I think that's a great idea. We should start with Oregon. That way your plant would be shut down and you wouldn't be able to further poison your neighbors! Sounds like a great plan!

 

[skookerasbil]

Read up on volcano's s0n!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Herald Sun Andrew Blog?

Reporting from a legit scientist. I would assume that's OK with you seeings's how you do it all the time. Or do you follow a different set of rules?

First, it is not an article on global warming, and, second, I think that it is a waste of money. Just shut the damned coal fired plants down, use the money that would have been spent on coal and remedying the problems that burning coal causes to build thermal solar plants. Australia is the ideal place for that technology.

You fcukking moron............you know how many people that puts out of work? Thats why you fcukking k00ks are so dispised..........becasue your attitude is FCUKK YOU to the rest of the world so you can have your OCD taken care of. Solar solutiions are for idiots..........its 19th century technology. People will take this shit seriously when the technology is developed. Solar and wind are a joke..........kill the economy and are mega-expensive. Case closed. What happened to Crap and Tax asshole???

 

[skookerasbil]

Reporting from a legit scientist. I would assume that's OK with you seeings's how you do it all the time. Or do you follow a different set of rules?

First, it is not an article on global warming, and, second, I think that it is a waste of money. Just shut the damned coal fired plants down, use the money that would have been spent on coal and remedying the problems that burning coal causes to build thermal solar plants. Australia is the ideal place for that technology.

I think that's a great idea. We should start with Oregon. That way your plant would be shut down and you wouldn't be able to further poison your neighbors! Sounds like a great plan!

Pretty funny West.........what a surprise that people from a state like Oregon have all these brilliant idea's that screw up other people in real states. Oregon.........its like a pseudo-state. What is Oregon known for??? Thank you!!! Half of oddball America lives in Oregon.........half the towns might as well be named Bumfook.

 

[IanC]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo&feature=related]YouTube - Why the IPCC models are wrong - Part 1[/ame]

As Old Rocks noted earlier, Spencer's work on clouds and the CERES satellite data seem to show that we have a long way to go before our understanding of climate feedback systems is "settled science".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And of course, you'll have no trouble showing us in a laboratory setting how a 67% increase in CO2 caused the warming, right?

Not at all, thank you.

OK.

Where is it?

 

[konradv]

Check the 10-20 posts where I've answered the same question. Your intellectual dishonesty shows no bounds, does it?