More "climate model" BULLSHITE!!!

Discussion in 'Environment' started by skookerasbil, Jul 8, 2011.

  1. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    25,743
    Thanks Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +7,451
    As we have been posting in this forum, almost every day, there is a new report of data manipulation as it relates to climate change.

    Here is the latest............and ask me if Im not laughing my balls off???

    Thursday, July 7, 2011
    Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4

    A paper published in the technical newsletter of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment finds that climate models suppress the negative feedback from low clouds, which serve to cool the Earth by reflection of incoming sunlight. The paper notes that cloud feedbacks in computer models are not only uncertain in magnitude, but even in sign (positive or negative). As climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, a mere 1 to 2% natural variation in cloud cover can alone account for whether there is global warming or global cooling, despite any alleged effects of CO2.

    :lol::lol::lol::lol:Using satellite observations, the paper shows that the feedback from low clouds is indeed negative and is underestimated in climate models by a factor of four. This has the effect of the models greatly overestimating global warming from CO2 and underestimating the influence of variations of the Sun/cosmic rays via cloud formation.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

    Is There a Missing Low Cloud Feedback in Current Climate Models? Graeme L. Stephens
    Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Boulder, Colorado, USA
    Radiative feedbacks involving low level clouds are a primary cause of uncertainty in global climate model projections. The feedback in models is not only uncertain in magnitude, but even its sign varies across climate models (e.g., Bony and Dufresne, 2005). These low cloud feedbacks have been hypothesized in terms of the effects of two primary cloud variables—low cloud amount and cloud optical depth. The basis of these feedbacks relies on the connection between these variables and the solar radiation leaving the planet exemplified in the following simple expressions (Stephens, 2005). ...an increase in optical depth with an increase in temperature results in an increase in cloud albedo, suggesting a negative feedback.
    ...
    The net consequence of these biases is that the optical depth of low clouds in GCMs (General Circulation Models) is more than a factor of two greater than observed, resulting in albedos of clouds that are too high. This model low-cloud albedo bias is not a new finding and is not a feature of just these two models. The study of Allan et al. (2007), for example, also noted how the reflection by low-level clouds in the unified model of the UK Meteorological Office is significantly larger than matched satellite observations of albedo, suggesting that this bias also exists in that model. The mean LWP (cloud liquid water path) of model clouds that contributed to this in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment is close to 200 g/m2, which is also nearly a factor of two larger than observed.

    The implication of this optical depth bias that owes its source to biases in both the LWP and particle sizes is that the solar radiation reflected by low clouds is significantly enhanced in models compared to real clouds. This reflected sunlight bias has significant implications for the cloud-climate feedback problem. The consequence is that this bias artificially suppresses the low cloud optical depth feedback in models by almost a factor of four and thus its potential role as a negative feedback. This bias explains why the optical depth feedback is practically negligible in most global models (e.g., Colman et al., 2003) and why it has received scant attention in low cloud feedback discussion. These results are also relevant to the model biases in absorbed solar radiation discussed recently by Trenberth and Fasullo (2010) and as explored in more detail in Stephens et al. (2010).

    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4






    more.............winning



    :fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu:


    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    25,743
    Thanks Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +7,451
    [​IMG]
     
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    25,743
    Thanks Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +7,451
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52,568
    Thanks Received:
    4,998
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +17,721
    Yeah it does concern me as a serious future negative forcing. As you increase water vapor for one you do get more positive forcing with the green house side, but you also get more cloud cover and as the arctic warms that part of the planet shall have more clouds. I've looked through papers that show that this could very well counter co2's warming ability much like sulfur and the solar minimum is currently doing. If all 3 where to come together it could be enough to cause a large enough negative to cause the global temperatures to go down.

    The global warmers at the IPCC are to one sided and not able to think this through. First it has been proven that the 50s, 60s and 70s cooling of .1 to .15 was because of the developed worlds sulfur emissions, but then they wouldn't even count the fact that china and India are putting a crap load of it into the atmosphere over the past 10 years. This and the solar minimum from hell have teamed up over the past 8 years and this could come into play within the next few decades.
     
  5. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52,568
    Thanks Received:
    4,998
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +17,721
    The solar output peaked in 1950 and has been slowly going down since, so you can't explain the warming through solar output since. About .15-.25 of the warming from 1880-1940 was in fact caused by the sun--something like 40 percent of the warming. Sulfer during the 1950s-1970s caused about .1 or so cooling. How the world do you explain wirebender or anyone the forcing for the .4c of warming since 1980 without co2 or other green house forcing(water vapor, methane). YOU CAN'T say the sun because it has decreased since the 1950s and has just taken a giant crap since 2003.

    You can't get Y without knowing the reason behind it. You can't discount the effects of co2 without then needing to find the why's of the increase in temperature, which is caused by increase forcing. What is causing it?

    200+x=220 and 220=y, so what you have here is to figure out what is causing the forcing that completes the equation. Of course you could say the sun is the 200, which makes up the vast amount of the Y. X is what ever extra forcing. You then could go on and add a z because x could be the natural forcing of co2, water vapor and differences within solar output within shorter time scales. So z would be what ever man is causing. So lets say the sun+the natural green house gases are now know and they're 15, so x=15. Now you have 200+15+z=220. You could figure that out to be 5=z, but if not co2---then what? What would z be that is causing the 5? Most of science believes Z to be co2 caused by man.

    What I'm saying is you can show co2 wrong, but then you need to find out what is causing the forcing for the warming...
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011
  6. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    25,743
    Thanks Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +7,451
    Translation???


    Nobody knows for sure what the fuck is causing the warming.
     
  7. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52,568
    Thanks Received:
    4,998
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +17,721
    Science is all about figuring out what the fuck is causing the warming. Warming doesn't happen without a surplus of energy.:tongue: I updated my post above a little and we now went to find for the Z. What is it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    50,235
    Thanks Received:
    5,919
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +12,583
    At present, there is a major arguement concerning whether cloud cover due to increased water vapor from the additional heat in the atmosphere will be a negative, positive, or neutral forcing. Thus far the observations seem to indicate positve.

    A very strong La Nina, solar minimum, and increased aerosols, yet the temperature continues to climb.
     
  9. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52,568
    Thanks Received:
    4,998
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +17,721
    I heard more lower clouds=negative and more higher clouds=positive.
     
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    44,697
    Thanks Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +25,005




    No, they don't. So far OBSERVED data tends to infer a negative forcing. It is ONLY IN COMPUTER MODELS that clouds are a positive forcer.
     

Share This Page