How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[ReinyDays]

From https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf "Evaluation of Climate Models"

Atmospheric models must parameterize a wide range of processes, including those associated with atmospheric convection and clouds, cloud-microphysical and aerosol processes and their interaction, boundary layer processes, as well as radiation and the treatment of unresolved gravity waves. Advances made in the representation of cloud processes, including aerosol–cloud and cloud–radiation interactions, and atmospheric convection are described in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.4.

Several global models have successfully adopted new approaches to the parameterization of shallow cumulus convection and moist boundary layer turbulence that acknowledge their close mutual coupling.

Regional-scale precipitation simulation has strong parameter dependence (Rougier et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010; Neelin et al., 2010), and in some models substantial improvements have been shown through increases in resolution (Delworth et al., 2012) and improved representations of sub-gridscale processes, particularly convection (Neale et al., 2008).

And 33 more occurrences of the term.

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... then you'll see why the IPCC only predicts a small 2ºC increase over the next 100 years ...

My information appears to be dated ... so I do thank you for this correction ... computers used to run these climate models will have twice as many transitors per square inch in just 18 months ... Moore's Law ... I'll look over those references you posted later today and see if that answers my question ...

ETA: It's a few minytes later in the day now:

"Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain." -- IPCC AR5 1WG § 7.2.3

My claim was based on hyperbole ... current unit volumes are smaller these days ... to wit:

"Most CMIP5 climate model simulations use horizontal resolutions of 100 to 200 km in the atmosphere, with vertical layers varying between 100 m near the surface to more than 1000 m aloft." -- ibid.

Still, 20,000 km^2 resolution is pretty bad ... and this blurriness in magnified over each iteration ... AND it doesn't say average cloudiness will be less with warmer temperatures ... this citation doesn't validate either of our claims ... but my claim is based on firm scientific theories, where each logic step can be easily demonstrated if not on our kitchen counter, then in any basic lab set-up at your local community college ...

What theory do you base your claim on? ... because the IPCC does NOT present any claim on in this matter, as I've quoted above ...

Let's take our air parcel at 25ºC, 80% RH, two meters above the ocean surface ... now uplift this air parcel to a temperature of -40ºC at roughly 25,000 feet elevation ... what happens to RH? ... don't be shy, be very specific ...

Feel free to tell us what happens and how that will refute the Greenhouse Effect or the conclusions of the IPCC. I'm not your calculator.

I've never refuted global warming ... only the stupidity of claiming catastrophe ... "less clouds" ... what a load of horseshit ...

 

[ReinyDays]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

View attachment 487673

Yes ... that photograph of Earth commonly circulated also serves as a diagram of Earth's albedo ... the Earth emits in the IR, all the visible light is solar radiation reflecting back to the camera ... by definition, this is albedo ... we do need to be careful what conclusion we draw from this ... but I think we're safe saying the white clouds are reflecting all wavelengths of solar radiation ... and that more white clouds would reflect more of this solar radiation ...

That's balanced against the clouds ability to redirect IR from the Earth back down ... where the net lands is an area of active research (i.e. controversial) ...

 

[Crick]

From https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf "Evaluation of Climate Models"

Atmospheric models must parameterize a wide range of processes, including those associated with atmospheric convection and clouds, cloud-microphysical and aerosol processes and their interaction, boundary layer processes, as well as radiation and the treatment of unresolved gravity waves. Advances made in the representation of cloud processes, including aerosol–cloud and cloud–radiation interactions, and atmospheric convection are described in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.4.

Several global models have successfully adopted new approaches to the parameterization of shallow cumulus convection and moist boundary layer turbulence that acknowledge their close mutual coupling.

Regional-scale precipitation simulation has strong parameter dependence (Rougier et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010; Neelin et al., 2010), and in some models substantial improvements have been shown through increases in resolution (Delworth et al., 2012) and improved representations of sub-gridscale processes, particularly convection (Neale et al., 2008).

And 33 more occurrences of the term.

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... then you'll see why the IPCC only predicts a small 2ºC increase over the next 100 years ...

My information appears to be dated ... so I do thank you for this correction ... computers used to run these climate models will have twice as many transitors per square inch in just 18 months ... Moore's Law ... I'll look over those references you posted later today and see if that answers my question ...

ETA: It's a few minytes later in the day now:

"Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain." -- IPCC AR5 1WG § 7.2.3

My claim was based on hyperbole ... current unit volumes are smaller these days ... to wit:

"Most CMIP5 climate model simulations use horizontal resolutions of 100 to 200 km in the atmosphere, with vertical layers varying between 100 m near the surface to more than 1000 m aloft." -- ibid.

Still, 20,000 km^2 resolution is pretty bad ... and this blurriness in magnified over each iteration ... AND it doesn't say average cloudiness will be less with warmer temperatures ... this citation doesn't validate either of our claims ... but my claim is based on firm scientific theories, where each logic step can be easily demonstrated if not on our kitchen counter, then in any basic lab set-up at your local community college ...

What theory do you base your claim on? ... because the IPCC does NOT present any claim on in this matter, as I've quoted above ...

Let's take our air parcel at 25ºC, 80% RH, two meters above the ocean surface ... now uplift this air parcel to a temperature of -40ºC at roughly 25,000 feet elevation ... what happens to RH? ... don't be shy, be very specific ...

Feel free to tell us what happens and how that will refute the Greenhouse Effect or the conclusions of the IPCC. I'm not your calculator.

I've never refuted global warming ... only the stupidity of claiming catastrophe ... "less clouds" ... what a load of horseshit ...

My "less clouds" comment was tongue-in-cheek and intended, as I stated, to point out our weak foundation in the science of clouds and climate. My apologies for being too subtle. As to the stupidity of claiming catastrophe, how about a few details? How does your parcel of air refute the risk of catastrophe?

 

[ding]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

View attachment 487673

Yes ... that photograph of Earth commonly circulated also serves as a diagram of Earth's albedo ... the Earth emits in the IR, all the visible light is solar radiation reflecting back to the camera ... by definition, this is albedo ... we do need to be careful what conclusion we draw from this ... but I think we're safe saying the white clouds are reflecting all wavelengths of solar radiation ... and that more white clouds would reflect more of this solar radiation ...

That's balanced against the clouds ability to redirect IR from the Earth back down ... where the net lands is an area of active research (i.e. controversial) ...

Correct. Water vapor/clouds are pretty big wild cards. They affect both sides of the equation. But I have to believe it is the dominant atmospheric variable (by far) that is not understood well enough to justify piling on positive feedback at this point in time. I can't help but believe the net effect is to compensate for warmer temperatures.

 

[daveman]

There is no proper temperature but if man had never burned any fossil fuels, it would be about 12C. The CO2 level before the Industrial Revolution was 280 ppm. Paying to stop global warming will cost a great deal less than paying for the consequences. And stopping it two decades ago when we were first warned about this problem would have cost orders of magnitude less.

I see words. I see no links to back them up.

 

[daveman]

You need a math education.

Do you believe Chinese CO2 is harmless?

Because I'd like to know why you think the burden to "save" the planet is borne solely by the Western world.

 

[daveman]

And one more question before you get started: what is the conductive heat transfer rate from the atmosphere to space?

Energy does not conduct to vacuum.

 

[Crick]

Well, yes, heat certainly does not. I had been wondering how conduction was going to solve global warming when it can't leave that way. It can, however, get to the upper atmosphere by conduction (and convection and radiative transfer) and then leave via radiation. but you are absolutely correct: no conduction to the vacuum of space.

 

[Crick]

There is no proper temperature but if man had never burned any fossil fuels, it would be about 12C. The CO2 level before the Industrial Revolution was 280 ppm. Paying to stop global warming will cost a great deal less than paying for the consequences. And stopping it two decades ago when we were first warned about this problem would have cost orders of magnitude less.

I see words. I see no links to back them up.

What would you like backed up? Surely you have seen these numbers here a hundred times before. 12C is simply the temperature of the Earth about 1820-1850 and 280 ppm has been recognized as the pre-industrial CO2 level for decades. Do you still want some links?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Which climate scientists? The ones who are subsidized to push AGW alarmism or the ones who study atmospherics and climate?

 

[ReinyDays]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

View attachment 487673

Yes ... that photograph of Earth commonly circulated also serves as a diagram of Earth's albedo ... the Earth emits in the IR, all the visible light is solar radiation reflecting back to the camera ... by definition, this is albedo ... we do need to be careful what conclusion we draw from this ... but I think we're safe saying the white clouds are reflecting all wavelengths of solar radiation ... and that more white clouds would reflect more of this solar radiation ...

That's balanced against the clouds ability to redirect IR from the Earth back down ... where the net lands is an area of active research (i.e. controversial) ...

Correct. Water vapor/clouds are pretty big wild cards. They affect both sides of the equation. But I have to believe it is the dominant atmospheric variable (by far) that is not understood well enough to justify piling on positive feedback at this point in time. I can't help but believe the net effect is to compensate for warmer temperatures.

From https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf "Evaluation of Climate Models"

Atmospheric models must parameterize a wide range of processes, including those associated with atmospheric convection and clouds, cloud-microphysical and aerosol processes and their interaction, boundary layer processes, as well as radiation and the treatment of unresolved gravity waves. Advances made in the representation of cloud processes, including aerosol–cloud and cloud–radiation interactions, and atmospheric convection are described in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.4.

Several global models have successfully adopted new approaches to the parameterization of shallow cumulus convection and moist boundary layer turbulence that acknowledge their close mutual coupling.

Regional-scale precipitation simulation has strong parameter dependence (Rougier et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010; Neelin et al., 2010), and in some models substantial improvements have been shown through increases in resolution (Delworth et al., 2012) and improved representations of sub-gridscale processes, particularly convection (Neale et al., 2008).

And 33 more occurrences of the term.

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... then you'll see why the IPCC only predicts a small 2ºC increase over the next 100 years ...

My information appears to be dated ... so I do thank you for this correction ... computers used to run these climate models will have twice as many transitors per square inch in just 18 months ... Moore's Law ... I'll look over those references you posted later today and see if that answers my question ...

ETA: It's a few minytes later in the day now:

"Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain." -- IPCC AR5 1WG § 7.2.3

My claim was based on hyperbole ... current unit volumes are smaller these days ... to wit:

"Most CMIP5 climate model simulations use horizontal resolutions of 100 to 200 km in the atmosphere, with vertical layers varying between 100 m near the surface to more than 1000 m aloft." -- ibid.

Still, 20,000 km^2 resolution is pretty bad ... and this blurriness in magnified over each iteration ... AND it doesn't say average cloudiness will be less with warmer temperatures ... this citation doesn't validate either of our claims ... but my claim is based on firm scientific theories, where each logic step can be easily demonstrated if not on our kitchen counter, then in any basic lab set-up at your local community college ...

What theory do you base your claim on? ... because the IPCC does NOT present any claim on in this matter, as I've quoted above ...

Let's take our air parcel at 25ºC, 80% RH, two meters above the ocean surface ... now uplift this air parcel to a temperature of -40ºC at roughly 25,000 feet elevation ... what happens to RH? ... don't be shy, be very specific ...

Feel free to tell us what happens and how that will refute the Greenhouse Effect or the conclusions of the IPCC. I'm not your calculator.

I've never refuted global warming ... only the stupidity of claiming catastrophe ... "less clouds" ... what a load of horseshit ...

My "less clouds" comment was tongue-in-cheek and intended, as I stated, to point out our weak foundation in the science of clouds and climate. My apologies for being too subtle. As to the stupidity of claiming catastrophe, how about a few details? How does your parcel of air refute the risk of catastrophe?

Your "less clouds" claim is a joke then ... got it ... ha ha ha ... had me going there for a while ...

 

[ding]

Well, yes, heat certainly does not. I had been wondering how conduction was going to solve global warming when it can't leave that way. It can, however, get to the upper atmosphere by conduction (and convection and radiative transfer) and then leave via radiation. but you are absolutely correct: no conduction to the vacuum of space.

Jesus Christ, you are in an ice age. Stop with the runaway greenhouse bullshit. Your own graph showed a temperature increase of 50% of what the radiative forcing from CO2 would predict for CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

 

[HaShev]

 

[ReinyDays]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

View attachment 487673

Yes ... that photograph of Earth commonly circulated also serves as a diagram of Earth's albedo ... the Earth emits in the IR, all the visible light is solar radiation reflecting back to the camera ... by definition, this is albedo ... we do need to be careful what conclusion we draw from this ... but I think we're safe saying the white clouds are reflecting all wavelengths of solar radiation ... and that more white clouds would reflect more of this solar radiation ...

That's balanced against the clouds ability to redirect IR from the Earth back down ... where the net lands is an area of active research (i.e. controversial) ...

Correct. Water vapor/clouds are pretty big wild cards. They affect both sides of the equation. But I have to believe it is the dominant atmospheric variable (by far) that is not understood well enough to justify piling on positive feedback at this point in time. I can't help but believe the net effect is to compensate for warmer temperatures.

Correct. Water vapor/clouds are pretty big wild cards. They affect both sides of the equation. But I have to believe it is the dominant atmospheric variable (by far) that is not understood well enough to justify piling on positive feedback at this point in time. I can't help but believe the net effect is to compensate for warmer temperatures.

Very difficult to measure ... particularly because it's so dynamic ... how clouds interact with the outgoing IR from Earth is masked by the active condensation (which is what a cloud is) and flooding the environment with it's own radiation ... plus IR is much less energetic than visible ... if I was to guess, I would guess the incoming albedo is twice the outgoing ... just an intuitive guess ...

 

[ding]

I would guess the incoming albedo is twice the outgoing ... just an intuitive guess ...

Which would be a lot because clouds are quite good at making for warmer mornings.

 

[westwall]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

I believe I'm less bias than the MSM, who reports on climate science... Does that count?

No, but I appreciate anyone that tries to be objective.

No, you don't. Thinking for yourself is anathema to idiots like you.

 

[westwall]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well I never had a boss and depended on no one. That is smart....Very smart.

But is is it smarter than 100,000 PhDs?

Liar. It's 74.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Snow is a thing of the past?

_One_ scientist. And every other scientist disagreed. And you knew that. Very dishonest of you to keep pretending otherwise.

Guam tipped over?

Not a scientist at all, so again, so even more wildly dishonest of you.

Ice free Arctic?

Where in the IPCC AR5 is that prediction made? Why do you keep predicting that random quotes are the consensus of climate scientists?

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.” ― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

And that's why personally you keep telloing the same debunks lies over and over. You're only interesting now as a study in deviant cult psychology.

All these crazy, stupid nonscientific predictions come from the Warmers.

You have no science, no experiments, only models and mindless drones bleating the same "wheeze all gunna dieeeeeee" nonsense.

Oh, and you give your ChiCom masters a pass

 

[mamooth]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

 

[mamooth]

Do you believe Chinese CO2 is harmless?

Because I'd like to know why you think the burden to "save" the planet is borne solely by the Western world.

We don't. You just lie about that.

That's generally the answer to every question deniers ask. You're just lying.