Trenberth's game of Whack-a-Mole aint over yet

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Sep 20, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    oh-oh! a new paper shows clouds cause cooling not warming. will Trenberth call for the head of another journal editor? hahaha.

    how many lances have to go in before the bull of settled science goes down for the count? its already haemorraging badly and the recent exaggerations and follies like the Times-Atlas and NASA's vengeful aliens arent helping CAGW either.

    Im on my phone so you'll have to get the abstract (or whole paper) from WUWT.
     
  2. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,778
    Thanks Received:
    4,615
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,246
    If it is about Spencer modeling the enso then this is laughable. Spencer was way off in modeling it.

    Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell
    Here is the others side refuting it with there idea's lining up with the real data. That is what is important in science. If you disagree then seriously, why?
     
  3. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    nope, just another paper on clouds

     
  4. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    I dont really want to start a thread on this, and actually it is only meant for you Matthew.

    you seem to have fallen into a love affair with skepticalscience and I want to point out to you that they arent quite the fine upstanding independent and neutral educators that you think they are. here are two versions of one of their articles. I can understand adding to an article or rewriting it but I certainly cant understand totally changing an article but keeping the original comments to falsely mock comments made in response to the original is a bit over the top dontcha think? are you going to follow in Old Rocks footsteps and defend indefensible lack of integrity?
    from the wayback machine- Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice
     
  5. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,778
    Thanks Received:
    4,615
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,246
    Clouds do cause a negative forcing, so there is no doubt about it that without clouds a far higher percentage of "solar input" would get to the surface of the earth. What I'm saying is out of the 174 pw of solar input, clouds reflect 35 pw back to space. So of course they are a negative on the system, but what scienctist are saying is that the negative becoming slightly less. Stratus clouds cover a much larger area and reflect solar input off there tops back into space, but if you decrease them and increase the convective clouds that have smaller "areas" that is going to lead to a lessing of the huge negative that clouds cause on the climate system.

    File:Breakdown of the incoming solar energy.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Here is a better take on this paper!
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/net-cloud-effect-cloud-feedback-wuwt-confused/

    Well of course clouds keep heat in at night...This is everything we already know about clouds.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  6. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    and now the present version, with demeaning remarks made to imply that the opposing commentors are stupid
    from Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?, while it lasts
     
  7. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    I think it hilarious that Trenberth has the nerve to demand full disclosure of data and methodologies from Spencer (which he has provided I believe) when he is quite happy to let his Team mates to obscure their data and methods as much as they want.
    steve McIntyre's take on it-
    More Hypocrisy from the Team « Climate Audit
     
  8. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,778
    Thanks Received:
    4,615
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,246
    Grace, Quikscat, MELT all observed melting of "land" ice of Antarctica. Wouldn't you agree Ian? If you don't think so, why? Up until mid 2009 the sea ice around antarctic was increasing, but since mid 2009 by Cryosphere today anomaly map trend, I posted in the arctic sea ice thread does show a decrease....I wish you to look at that Ionc. No scientist have came forward yet outside of my own opinion to say anything about it.

    I agree up to 2009 the sea ice around antarctic was INCREASING. I also agree that it would take tens of thousands of years to melt the ice at its current rate.


    I care most about who is right be it the pro-warmers side or skeptic side. We will see. I'm no alarmist as I believe that we will only see about 1.2c warming by 2100, but I will be open minded about such. I can understand why some people that get into this go over board and say things that are not the most accurate or attack other people, but I won't. As I believe that either side has some good points; we both know that we don't understand the system good enough to know the full picture yet. Believe me I'm not saying that looking for a lower sensitivity as Spencer and Blackwell are doing are wrong, but there models don't match the observations. The first step towards finding out the truth is finding what fits with real life. Believe me I believe that something is seriously wrong with current thinking, but we haven't found it yet.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  9. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    are you ducking the question Matthew?

    you seem to have fallen into a love affair with skepticalscience and I want to point out to you that they arent quite the fine upstanding independent and neutral educators that you think they are. here are two versions of one of their articles. I can understand adding to an article or rewriting it but I certainly cant understand totally changing an article but keeping the original comments to falsely mock comments made in response to the original is a bit over the top dontcha think? are you going to follow in Old Rocks footsteps and defend indefensible lack of integrity?
     
  10. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,778
    Thanks Received:
    4,615
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,246
    "I was surprised that this paper was linked to cloud feedback since, as you mention, it attempts to quantify the well known influence of cloud on Earth’s radiation budget (at the top of the atmosphere, at the surface and within the atmosphere and also during day and night) and does not attempt to diagnose cloud feedback.” Allen
     

Share This Page