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

[ReinyDays]

More water vapor --> more condensation -- > more clouds --> higher albedo --> less energy reaching the surface ...

Logical ...

And again, a confusion between absolute and relative humidity.

And again, a confusion between absolute and relative humidity.

Well .. the confusion is on your part ... absolute humidity is constant throughout this particular adiabatic process ... what we observe is very very close to the Ideal Gas Law when both mass and volume are held constant ... and increases in RH as pressure decreases can be calculated from the adiabatic lapse rate ... up to and including 100% RH ... mass and absolute humidity are constant up to this point ...

Further pressure decreases forces the water vapor out of the air and into it's liquid state ... while it's RH is constant (= 100%) and absolutely humidity decreases ... the greater the mass of water vapor to begin with (because of higher surface temperatures), the greater mass of liquid water in the atmosphere ... more clouds ...

Maybe instead of just saying the logic is wrong ... go ahead and point to the specific step that is in error ... like real scientists do for each other ...

 

[Crick]

Is that what I said? Can you link to that post?

You:

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds

Stop it with the games. They're not interesting. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it.

And stop assuming that everyone knows what your special cult lingo means. If you're going to use your own special made-up terms, you have to define them.

What is "PVT" supposed to mean? Do you even know yourself? Can you explain it in your own words?

The fact that you can't would seem to indicate that it's just some buzzphrase you were told to repeat.

Pressure Volume Temperature?

 

[mamooth]

Pressure Volume Temperature?

I'm pretty sure that's what it stands for as well. I just want to hear why he's throwing it around as if it explains something.

 

[Crick]

Pressure Volume Temperature?

I'm pretty sure that's what it stands for as well. I just want to hear why he's throwing it around as if it explains something.

I put Ding on ignore some time back and have had no regrets ah-boot it.

 

[mamooth]

Maybe instead of just saying the logic is wrong ... go ahead and point to the specific step that is in error ... like real scientists do for each other ...

It's that your whole model is vastly oversimplified, and thus incorrect.

There's not a nice even flow of water vapor coming up. It's very lumpy and irregular. That's why clouds are lumpy. Clouds in one spot, clear dry air nearby. Make some more wind, it busts up the clouds.

Clouds will also bust themselves due to internal heat. There's more internal heat around now.

 

[ding]

Is that what I said? Can you link to that post?

You:

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds

Stop it with the games. They're not interesting. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it.

And stop assuming that everyone knows what your special cult lingo means. If you're going to use your own special made-up terms, you have to define them.

What is "PVT" supposed to mean? Do you even know yourself? Can you explain it in your own words?

The fact that you can't would seem to indicate that it's just some buzzphrase you were told to repeat.

Right. More water vapor more clouds. Do you think that doesn't make sense?

For the record I did say what I meant. You were the one playing games, dear, by changing what I wrote.

Pressure, volume, temperature, dear. The ability for a fixed volume to hold water in vapor form is a function of pressure and temperature. That's what PVT means in the context of this discussion.

Are you suggesting that more water vapor in the atmosphere will lead to less clouds or the same amount of clouds cause that doesn't seem obvious to me.

 

[ding]

Pressure Volume Temperature?

I'm pretty sure that's what it stands for as well. I just want to hear why he's throwing it around as if it explains something.

I put Ding on ignore some time back and have had no regrets ah-boot it.

And yet you keep responding to my posts without using the reply feature. Odd, huh?

 

[Crick]

I will take my lumps

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Click on the title to browse this journal

rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Clouds are important in a climate system due to their impact on the radiation budget and precipitation. Changes in cloud cover are hard to infer due to lack of reliable long‐term cloud datasets. An attempt is made in this study to investigate the changes in cloud cover using the relationship between precipitation extremes and clouds. Heavy precipitation is associated with convective clouds while light precipitation occurs mostly with low clouds. The Global Precipitation and Climatology Project (GPCP) precipitation data are used in this study to relate the changes in heavy and light precipitation with those in convective and low cloud cover, respectively, from the Visible and Infrared Scanner data of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission available from 1998 to 2014. Slopes were derived between changes in precipitation extremes and cloud cover using monthly data. These slopes were applied to long‐term trends of precipitation extremes from GPCP data (1979–2016) to infer long‐term changes in convective and low cloud cover. Cloud cover derived using this technique shows substantial inter‐monthly and inter‐annual variability. The results show an increase of about 4.48 ± 1.9% per decade in convective cloud cover over tropical ocean (25 ° S–25 ° N). This is consistent with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) High Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) observations, which show an increase of about 5.04 ± 2.18% per decade in convective cloud cover over tropical ocean. In the present study an increasing trend of about 5.54 ± 2.07% in convective cloud cover over land (20 °–60 ° N) is also derived, which is comparable to the NOAA HIRS trend of about 6.57 ± 2.53% increase per decade. Decreases of about 3.52 ± 1.69% and 4.26 ± 1.48% per decade in low cloud cover over tropical ocean and northern mid‐latitude land, respectively, are reported and are consistent with decreases of about 3.05 ± 1.68% and 5.31 ± 2.22% from NOAA HIRS data over those regions.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....China doesn't give a rats ass a out the scientists...

China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Exceeded The Rest Of The Developed World Combined, Report

 

[ReinyDays]

Maybe instead of just saying the logic is wrong ... go ahead and point to the specific step that is in error ... like real scientists do for each other ...

It's that your whole model is vastly oversimplified, and thus incorrect.

There's not a nice even flow of water vapor coming up. It's very lumpy and irregular. That's why clouds are lumpy. Clouds in one spot, clear dry air nearby. Make some more wind, it busts up the clouds.

Clouds will also bust themselves due to internal heat. There's more internal heat around now.

It's that your whole model is vastly oversimplified, and thus incorrect.

Your carbon dioxide model is also vastly oversimplified, and thus incorrect ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander ...

There's not a nice even flow of water vapor coming up. It's very lumpy and irregular. That's why clouds are lumpy. Clouds in one spot, clear dry air nearby. Make some more wind, it busts up the clouds.

This is true for cumuliform clouds ... regular (or "pop-up") t-storms are well documented as self-defeating events ... we must slant the uplift column over to allow the falling rain to not interfere with the uplifting of the air, steady-state (or severe) t-storms ...however much of the cloudiness is stratiform, the uplift can be very minimal for a lot of clouds to form ... just need the extra mass of water vapor ...

Clouds will also bust themselves due to internal heat. There's more internal heat around now.

Is this "internal heat" caused by energy coming into existence where there was none before? ... what the hell do you mean "internal heat"? ... put a pan of water out on your kitchen counter ... why would it become warmer than room temperature? ... I can't believe you would just up and violate the Conservation Law like this ...

Water gives up it's heat as it condenses ... once condensed, the energy's gone ... all that's left is the energy needed to keep it in thermal equilibrium with the air in it's environment ... oh, right ... without the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, what's the point of having a 2nd Law? ... or a 3rd? ... perpetual motion solves all our energy needs ... let's set the well heads on fire ...

 

[Crick]

Once condensed the energy's gone? Really?

 

[ReinyDays]

I will take my lumps

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Click on the title to browse this journal

rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Clouds are important in a climate system due to their impact on the radiation budget and precipitation. Changes in cloud cover are hard to infer due to lack of reliable long‐term cloud datasets. An attempt is made in this study to investigate the changes in cloud cover using the relationship between precipitation extremes and clouds. Heavy precipitation is associated with convective clouds while light precipitation occurs mostly with low clouds. The Global Precipitation and Climatology Project (GPCP) precipitation data are used in this study to relate the changes in heavy and light precipitation with those in convective and low cloud cover, respectively, from the Visible and Infrared Scanner data of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission available from 1998 to 2014. Slopes were derived between changes in precipitation extremes and cloud cover using monthly data. These slopes were applied to long‐term trends of precipitation extremes from GPCP data (1979–2016) to infer long‐term changes in convective and low cloud cover. Cloud cover derived using this technique shows substantial inter‐monthly and inter‐annual variability. The results show an increase of about 4.48 ± 1.9% per decade in convective cloud cover over tropical ocean (25 ° S–25 ° N). This is consistent with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) High Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) observations, which show an increase of about 5.04 ± 2.18% per decade in convective cloud cover over tropical ocean. In the present study an increasing trend of about 5.54 ± 2.07% in convective cloud cover over land (20 °–60 ° N) is also derived, which is comparable to the NOAA HIRS trend of about 6.57 ± 2.53% increase per decade. Decreases of about 3.52 ± 1.69% and 4.26 ± 1.48% per decade in low cloud cover over tropical ocean and northern mid‐latitude land, respectively, are reported and are consistent with decreases of about 3.05 ± 1.68% and 5.31 ± 2.22% from NOAA HIRS data over those regions.

The climate system is very complicated ... very very very complicated ... so many factors, so much interaction ... both known and unknown ... what is unknown can't be programmed into a computer model ...

Extracting a "per decade" rate out of just 1.6 decades is a stretch ... with "substantial inter‐monthly and inter‐annual variability", it's going to be hard to pin down any inter-decade stability ... especially with a short data set ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Once condensed the energy's gone? Really?

Kitchen counter chemistry ... all the energy except that needed to maintain thermal equilibrium with the environment ... +2ºC water vapor condenses into +2ºC liquid water, releasing all the latent heat into the environment ...

 

[Crepitus]

Several reputed scientists have said that climate is automatically self correcting, and that concerns are misplaced.

Nope.

Here is one scientist saying that man made increase in CO2 was not the cause of current warming, but that it was caused by a decrease in planetary albedo.

{...
It's albedo

"Earth’s Albedo has risen in the past few years, and by doing reconstructions of the past albedo, it appears that there was a significant reduction in Earth’s albedo leading up to a lull in 1997. The most interesting thing here is that the albedo forcings, in watts/sq meter seem to be fairly large. Larger than that of all manmade greenhouse gases combined." (Anthony Watts)
...}

Here is another suggesting increased albedo will cause negative feedback that will counter act global warming naturally.

{...

The Unsettled Science of Albedo​

“Clouds are very pesky for climate scientists…”
Karen M. Shell, Associate Professor, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, writing about cloud feedback for RealClimate

Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a surface. The albedo effect when applied to the Earth is a measure of how much of the Sun's energy is reflected back into space. Overall, the Earth's albedo has a cooling effect. (The term ‘albedo’ is derived from the Latin for ‘whiteness’).
...

Conclusions​

Albedo is a subject needing a lot more research. It’s an important feature of our climate, and a complex one. It is not yet possible to make definitive statements about what the future may hold. In fact, it is a good example of the ‘unsettled’ nature of climate change science.

We know the planet is warming, and that human agency is causing it. What we cannot say yet is how climate change is affecting albedo, how it might be affected in the future, and what contribution to climate change - positive or negative - it may make.
...}

You're grasping at straws. Neither one of those says what you think it does.

 

[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.

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?

Not necessary. I don't share your worship of climate "science". It will all just boil down to "because we say so".

 

[daveman]

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.

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."

At times attributed to Communists Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx, National Socialist Joseph Goebbels and sometimes even modern Leftist godfather Saul Alinsky.

Used on a daily basis by USMB member mamooth

Where are your demands that China and India reduce their emissions?

Oh, right -- you don't ever do that.

Run along now.

 

[Crick]

Dave, could you show us where Mammooth or I have ever specifically said that the US needs to do something about AGW and/or suggested that we didn't care whether or not anyone else did? I think you would find that we have consistently addressed everyone about this problem. Obviously, our primary concern will be with what this nation does because we are citizens in this democracy. And besides, your apparent contention that we can't suggest the US needs to do this or that because China and India also need to be told to do such things, just make you look like a stupid asshole. And you don't really want to look like a stupid asshole. I know you don't. So stop making stupid asshole arguments.

 

[daveman]

Dave, could you show us where Mammooth or I have ever specifically said that the US needs to do something about AGW and/or suggested that we didn't care whether or not anyone else did? I think you would find that we have consistently addressed everyone about this problem. Obviously, our primary concern will be with what this nation does because we are citizens in this democracy. And besides, your apparent contention that we can't suggest the US needs to do this or that because China and India also need to be told to do such things, just make you look like a stupid asshole. And you don't really want to look like a stupid asshole. I know you don't. So stop making stupid asshole arguments.

Eat shit. Any reductions America makes will be more than offset by increases from India and China. So you wanting to cripple America's economy is not only stupid, it's useless.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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!

Don’t know about scientists per se but I am 100% smarter than you on any subject you choose. Happy to compare resumes at any time.

 

[Crick]

You seem to have missed the point of the entire thread. Most deniers believe, whether or not they will admit it, that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants. They come up with points that a junior high student wouldn't have missed and claim all the world's scientists missed them.

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic. As to my intelligence, the only thing I'll say is that I'm smart enough not to make a puerile remark like yours and I suspect you made that remark because you realize you are just the sort of person for which the lead post is searching.