Clouds are negative forcers....who knew?

[westwall]

Certainly not the AGW cultists. They have allways assumed that clouds were a positive forcer, which flys in the face of logic, but that's not new with them is it?

Yet another failure of the global warming models.

Will they EVER get one correct?


This study investigated variations in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in response to changes in sea surface temperature (SST) over the Pacific warm pool area (20°N–20°S, 130°E–170°W). OLR values were obtained from recent (January 2008–June 2010) geostationary window channel imagery at hourly resolution, which resolves processes associated with tropical convective clouds. We used linear regression analysis with the domain-averaged OLR and SST anomalies (i.e., ΔOLR, ΔSST; deviations from their 90-day moving averages). Results show that the regression slope appears to be significant only with SST least-affected by cloud radiative forcing, for which SST needs to be obtained as daily average over cloud-free regions (ΔSSTclear). The estimated value of ΔOLR/ΔSSTclear is 15.72 W m−2 K−1, indicating the presence of strong outgoing longwave radiation in response to surface warming. This atmospheric cooling effect is found to be primarily associated with reduced areal coverage of clouds (−14.4% K−1).



The observed variation in cloud-induced longwave radiation in response to sea surface temperature over the Pacific warm pool from MTSAT-1R imagery

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmer models have accounted for that by totally ignoring it.

 

[mamooth]

That's bizarre. I'm talking about Westwall's claim that "models always assumed clouds are a positive forcer". I wonder where he gets such nonsense. Back in the real world, models say clouds can have either negative or positive forcing effects, depending on the situation.

But hey, congratulations to Westwall on his decisive refutation of yet another one of his strawmen.

 

[westwall]

That's bizarre. I'm talking about Westwall's claim that "models always assumed clouds are a positive forcer". I wonder where he gets such nonsense. Back in the real world, models say clouds can have either negative or positive forcing effects, depending on the situation.

But hey, congratulations to Westwall on his decisive refutation of yet another one of his strawmen.

No, fool. Clouds can't have a "positive or negative forcing depending on the situation". In the real world pysical processes work the same....every time, regardless of whether you need it to be positive of negative based on whatever BS model you happen to be working on at that particular moment.

You see dear child, that's the difference between REAL science and your politicized version of science.

You can't fool Mother Nature because she can't be fooled...unlike you.

 

[mamooth]

You realize not all clouds are the same? And that climate conditions are different across the globe? That would be the "depending on the situation" thing.

Don't worry. The scientists do realize it. Your failure to grasp the basics only reflects badly on you. I could point you to the reports that talk about it in more detail, but what good would that do? It's not like you could understand them, being you're so emotionally invested in not understanding them.

 

[westwall]

You realize not all clouds are the same? And that climate conditions are different across the globe? That would be the "depending on the situation" thing.

Don't worry. The scientists do realize it. Your failure to grasp the basics only reflects badly on you. I could point you to the reports that talk about it in more detail, but what good would that do? It's not like you could understand them, being you're so emotionally invested in not understanding them.

Really. Not all clouds are the same. Who knew. Now, for the class, how do clouds form and what physical laws govern their behavior? And please, use your own words....no cutting and pasting.

 

[flacaltenn]

You realize not all clouds are the same? And that climate conditions are different across the globe? That would be the "depending on the situation" thing.

Don't worry. The scientists do realize it. Your failure to grasp the basics only reflects badly on you. I could point you to the reports that talk about it in more detail, but what good would that do? It's not like you could understand them, being you're so emotionally invested in not understanding them.

Well those cheap Chinese models contain loads of mercury and arsenic and aren't as "fluffy" as those made in the good ole USA...


Actually clouds during the day are negative feedback.. Clouds at night --- not so much... So when you put that into the AGW lexicon the "average effect" can be positive or negative... Since AGW'ers don't deal with specific physical processes -- just yearly global averages.

 

[westwall]

You realize not all clouds are the same? And that climate conditions are different across the globe? That would be the "depending on the situation" thing.

Don't worry. The scientists do realize it. Your failure to grasp the basics only reflects badly on you. I could point you to the reports that talk about it in more detail, but what good would that do? It's not like you could understand them, being you're so emotionally invested in not understanding them.

Well those cheap Chinese models contain loads of mercury and arsenic and aren't as "fluffy" as those made in the good ole USA...


Actually clouds during the day are negative feedback.. Clouds at night --- not so much... So when you put that into the AGW lexicon the "average effect" can be positive or negative... Since AGW'ers don't deal with specific physical processes -- just yearly global averages.

Even at night they are still negative forcers.

 

[Oddball]

The hell you say?

You mean that more cloud cover means more solar radiation is being reflected back into space?

Well, I'll be dipped!

 

[westwall]

The hell you say?

You mean that more cloud cover means more solar radiation is being reflected back into space?

Well, I'll be dipped!

I KNOW! Counterintuitive isn't it. I mean what the hell, cloud shadows controlling sunlight striking the Earth...what a load of horse dung!

 

[mamooth]

Even at night they are still negative forcers.

That makes no sense. They're holding in heat. Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.

Here's the 2001 IPCC summary of cloud modelling issues back into the 90's, pointing out the uncertanties, and the improvements that were needed. It certainly doesn't seem like the models are ignoring clouds. On the contrary, they're working very hard to get it right.

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

You can also go to BOINC (distributed computing projects), and have your own computer do some climate modelling with spare CPU cycles. They do many thousands of repetitions, varying each parameter slightly, with clouds being one of the parameters being varied. That particular project started around 2003. Just more of those clouds being ignored by the models, I guess.

So, enough talk. Here's how those awful models and their terrible cloud simulations hindcast the climate. That is, put in past data and see if they predict the future-past accurately. Pretty damn good, eh? Hard to believe they could be that good if they were getting clouds totally wrong.

 

[skookerasbil]

Computer models in 2012 are gay..........yet are beloved in the world of the AGW k00ks.

When the asshole scientists can corretly tell us if a Carribean hurricane is going to make landfall in Europe or North America, then come talk to me about computer models related to temperatures 50 years from now!!!!

 

[westwall]

Even at night they are still negative forcers.

That makes no sense. They're holding in heat. Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.

Here's the 2001 IPCC summary of cloud modelling issues back into the 90's, pointing out the uncertanties, and the improvements that were needed. It certainly doesn't seem like the models are ignoring clouds. On the contrary, they're working very hard to get it right.

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

You can also go to BOINC (distributed computing projects), and have your own computer do some climate modelling with spare CPU cycles. They do many thousands of repetitions, varying each parameter slightly, with clouds being one of the parameters being varied. That particular project started around 2003. Just more of those clouds being ignored by the models, I guess.

So, enough talk. Here's how those awful models and their terrible cloud simulations hindcast the climate. That is, put in past data and see if they predict the future-past accurately. Pretty damn good, eh? Hard to believe they could be that good if they were getting clouds totally wrong.

Simulated huh. Got any REAL data there, slick?

 

[mamooth]

Westwall, you need to back up your crazy story about how all scientists said clouds were always positive forcing. That is the point here, the way you had it so totally wrong. That claim was the basis of this thread, and if you can't back it up, everything you've said is pointless.

A study showed some clouds have negative forcing, which ALL THE SCIENTISTS ALREADY KNEW. So just what are you going on about? You were wrong. Slink away in disgrace already. You should be used to it by now.

 

[westwall]

Westwall, you need to back up your crazy story about how all scientists said clouds were always positive forcing. That is the point here, the way you had it so totally wrong. That claim was the basis of this thread, and if you can't back it up, everything you've said is pointless.

A study showed some clouds have negative forcing, which ALL THE SCIENTISTS ALREADY KNEW. So just what are you going on about? You were wrong. Slink away in disgrace already. You should be used to it by now.

No, what's disgraceful is your continued delusional belief that models somehow constitue data. Only a willful idiot, or a intellectually dishonest criminal believes that.

I'll let you figure out which one you are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for sure is that CO2 is melting the ice caps

 

[flacaltenn]

You realize not all clouds are the same? And that climate conditions are different across the globe? That would be the "depending on the situation" thing.

Don't worry. The scientists do realize it. Your failure to grasp the basics only reflects badly on you. I could point you to the reports that talk about it in more detail, but what good would that do? It's not like you could understand them, being you're so emotionally invested in not understanding them.

Well those cheap Chinese models contain loads of mercury and arsenic and aren't as "fluffy" as those made in the good ole USA...


Actually clouds during the day are negative feedback.. Clouds at night --- not so much... So when you put that into the AGW lexicon the "average effect" can be positive or negative... Since AGW'ers don't deal with specific physical processes -- just yearly global averages.

Even at night they are still negative forcers.

You clueless cult denier retard ----

Explain to me (in gentle terms) --- how a deck of clouds at night in absence of additional heating serves to REMOVE heat from the surface. Or is this semantical because the atmosphere at some level ABOVE the deck gets cooled quicker than it would with more longwave IR coming from the surface?

 

[westwall]

Well those cheap Chinese models contain loads of mercury and arsenic and aren't as "fluffy" as those made in the good ole USA...


Actually clouds during the day are negative feedback.. Clouds at night --- not so much... So when you put that into the AGW lexicon the "average effect" can be positive or negative... Since AGW'ers don't deal with specific physical processes -- just yearly global averages.

Even at night they are still negative forcers.

You clueless cult denier retard ----

Explain to me (in gentle terms) --- how a deck of clouds at night in absence of additional heating serves to REMOVE heat from the surface. Or is this semantical because the atmosphere at some level ABOVE the deck gets cooled quicker than it would with more longwave IR coming from the surface?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not the slickest communicator on the planet. But I do know that semantical is a real word.. (I think).

 

[westwall]

I'm not the slickest communicator on the planet. But I do know that semantical is a real word.. (I think).

Yes it is...I was merely confirming your supposition!