Nevertheless, all this stuff is like crack cocaine for the climate blogosphere-Curry

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Why isnt there a thread on the Spencer v Dressler brouhaha?

the story has all the aspects of the climate controversy. unequal peer review, cherrypicking, Hockey Team bullying, climate model bashing, feedback uncertainties, grandstanding, you name it and its there. I guess it got overshadowed by the much less interesting CERN story.

easy to find on any climate blog, both AGW or skeptical. I reccomend reading both sides.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245


Spencer on his new paper back in July. Our Refutation of Dessler (2010) is Accepted for Publication « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
Given the history of the IPCC gatekeepers in trying to kill journal papers that don’t agree with their politically-skewed interpretations of science (also see here, here, here, here), I hope you will forgive me holding off for on giving the name of the journal until it is actually published.

But I did want to give them plenty of time to work on ignoring our published research as they write the next IPCC report.
how prescient of him. the paper set off a shit storm, Trenberth ( a grand poobah of the hockey team) got upset and made an underling fall on his sword for failing to hold up the paper in peer review for the usual months or years.
Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal

But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.

If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation.
Wolfie actually apologized to Trenberth! but, hey it may pay off down the line.

then Dressler writes a rebuttal paper and it gets peer reviewed and accepted for publication in just six weeks! smells like IPCC deadlines are approching fast. unfortunately rushed papers are crappy papers and the blogosphere is all over it. Spencer's understated response to it- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
Based upon the evidence above, I would say we are indeed going to respond with a journal submission to answer Dessler’s claims. I hope that GRL will offer us as rapid a turnaround as Dessler got in the peer review process. Feel free to take bets on that.
even more fun to watch is the technical discussions (which often include the data and code) at Climate Audit More on Dessler 2010 « Climate Audit

anyways, you get the idea. there are huge holes in the understanding of climate systems, climate scientists are notoriously weak at statistics, blah, blah, blah. I wish it wasnt true but it is. I wish peer review wasnt corrupted by politics but it is.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
I still cant believe no one is talking about this. the latest twist is that Trenberth gets to put his critcism of SB11 in the journal with no peer review and no response from the authors. accept the same day as it was submitted. interesting. skeptical science gets tied up in review for months or years, often to get rejected for bogus reasons while the warmist side gets immediate pal review and acceptance, even when they are obviously flawed. remember this doosey of a climategate email?

Phil Jones (8/7/2004): “The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen


Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
Posted on 6 September 2011 by Rob Painting & dana1981

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
Posted on 8 September 2011 by dana1981 & Rob Painting

Andrew Dessler's new paper, which we first examined in a post yesterday, has some very far-reaching implications in terms of refuting climate "skeptic" myths. In fact, its results are relevant to three seperate myths in the Skeptical Science database. As a result, we have incorporated the findings of Dessler (2011) into the three myth rebuttals as follows.
........
Spencer is getting his backside handed to him and losing credibility within his science. I find clouds causing the ENSO a fucking joke as the Enso is caused by pressure differences across the pacific...What is a bigger pressure forcer then the ocean? Seriously. Sure, I believe that the Atmosphere plays a smaller role in the enso, but the ocean is king. You think the godforsaken Atmosphere is going to cause upwelling 200 meters below the surface of the ocean? Don't think so.

The ocean has a thousand times as much heat as the whole atmosphere and works in its own methods. The Atmosphere is controlled by it; not to say that wind can't upwell shallow water to the surface to cool the surface...but as a feed back.

Also the enso isn't a forcer of warming or cooling over the mid to long term as the heat just gets moved around the oceans. Within Nino years most of the heat is centered near the surface over the eastern and central Pacific, but cooler waters are found over the western pacific at the surface, but on the other hand in Nina years the colder upwelled waters are at the surface with most of the heat 200-500 meters below the surface within the western pacific....Yes, some gets to the surface, but no where near what is near the surface during a nino year within the eastern Pacific. That is the reason that the world warms and cools with the enso.

If I was Spencer, I'd stick with what he is GOOD at like satellite temperature measurements. I am serious.
 
Last edited:
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
this is what I was talking about before. skepticalscience has created a strawman, distorted what the papers say, and anyone who doesnt get additional informed opinions is left with an incorrect understanding of the proceedings.

here is skepticalscience's precis-
The Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi papers have an unusual take on global warming: rather than warming causing a change in cloud cover (i.e. acting as a feedback to either increase or reduce warming), both papers claim that it's the other way around - changes in cloud cover cause changes in the surface temperature (in the present case, warming).

Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi look at the relationship between changes in ocean heat, cloud cover (directly affecting the amount of heat lost to space), and global surface temperature over recent decades. The idea is, if the change in surface temperature over that period is affected by changes in cloud cover, but changes of the surface temperature associated with the ocean warming are small, then changes in cloud cover must be driving the present global warming.
here is the abstract of SP11-
Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest
source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further
evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the
radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That
these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag
regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcingfeedback
model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000-2010 depart substantially in the
direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find it is not possible with current methods to quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks
which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the
climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between
radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
Spencer is saying that the data and models dont match up. Dessler says they do but his confidence levels are so low as to be ridiculous. it is always easier to show something is wrong and Spencer has put a major dagger into climate model's handling of clouds, feedbacks and sensitivities. most of the criticisms of SP11 also apply to Dessler10,11. McIntyre thinks both are pretty much crap btw. you will certainly find more actual info on the many of the skeptical site such as the links to the data, code to do the figures yourself, etc.

this whole saga also points out (again) the massively different standards that non mainstream papers are held to compared to team papers
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
40,152
Reaction score
5,385
Points
1,830
Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen


Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
Posted on 6 September 2011 by Rob Painting & dana1981

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
Posted on 8 September 2011 by dana1981 & Rob Painting

Andrew Dessler's new paper, which we first examined in a post yesterday, has some very far-reaching implications in terms of refuting climate "skeptic" myths. In fact, its results are relevant to three seperate myths in the Skeptical Science database. As a result, we have incorporated the findings of Dessler (2011) into the three myth rebuttals as follows.
........
Spencer is getting his backside handed to him and losing credibility within his science. I find clouds causing the ENSO a fucking joke as the Enso is caused by pressure differences across the pacific...What is a bigger pressure forcer then the ocean? Seriously. Sure, I believe that the Atmosphere plays a smaller role in the enso, but the ocean is king. You think the godforsaken Atmosphere is going to cause upwelling 200 meters below the surface of the ocean? Don't think so.

The ocean has a thousand times as much heat as the whole atmosphere and works in its own methods. The Atmosphere is controlled by it; not to say that wind can't upwell shallow water to the surface to cool the surface...but as a feed back.

Also the enso isn't a forcer of warming or cooling over the mid to long term as the heat just gets moved around the oceans. Within Nino years most of the heat is centered near the surface over the eastern and central Pacific, but cooler waters are found over the western pacific at the surface, but on the other hand in Nina years the colder upwelled waters are at the surface with most of the heat 200-500 meters below the surface within the western pacific....Yes, some gets to the surface, but no where near what is near the surface during a nino year within the eastern Pacific. That is the reason that the world warms and cools with the enso.

If I was Spencer, I'd stick with what he is GOOD at like satellite temperature measurements. I am serious.
And Spencer knows nothing about satellites!
Either that or he DELIBERATELY used the opposite sign to calculate diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic satellite calculations!
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Well, more lower clouds would of course mean less solar energy making it into the ocean and more reflected to space, but within a warming world the "clouds" become higher within the Atmosphere as the atmosphere expands.

Some studies that were done within the tropics shown that the forcing of clouds is more positive or neutral in natural.

"Lauer et al. (2010) is not alone in its conclusion that the low-level cloud cover feedback will be positive. Other studies analyzing satellite data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), and the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) such as Chang and Coakley (2007) and Eitzen et al. (2008) have indicated that cloud optical depth of low marine clouds might be expected to decrease with increasing temperature. This suggests a positive shortwave cloud–climate feedback for marine stratocumulus decks."

A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
What is the net feedback from clouds?

"To the extent that iRAM results for cloud feedbacks in the east Pacific are credible, they provide support for the high end of current estimates of global climate sensitivity."

"In another recent paper, Clement et al. (2009) analyzed several decades of ship-based observations of cloud cover along with more recent satellite observations, with a focus on the northeastern Pacific. They found that there is a negative correlation between cloud cover and sea surface temperature apparent on a long time scale—again suggesting a positive cloud-climate feedback in this region."
Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements

"However, a response to this paper, Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation (Trenberth et al 2010) revealed a number of flaws in Lindzen's analysis. It turns out the low climate sensitivity result is heavily dependent on the choice of start and end points in the periods they analyse. Small changes in their choice of dates entirely change the result. Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes."

"Debunked by Murphy

Another major flaw in Lindzen's analysis is that they attempt to calculate global climate sensitivity from tropical data. The tropics are not a closed system - a great deal of energy is exchanged between the tropics and subtropics. To properly calculate global climate sensitivity, global observations are required.

This is confirmed by another paper published in early May (Murphy 2010). This paper finds that small changes in the heat transport between the tropics and subtropics can swamp the tropical signal. They conclude that climate sensitivity must be calculated from global data."

[/quote] So since it is easy to transfer from tropics to the rest of the globe; we all know the hadley cells and how air raises within the tropics and moves northward all around the world. So this makes a lot of since. It just doesn't make any sense to use -20 to 20 north/south within a open system as the earth to figure globally
Debunked by Chung

In addition, another paper reproduced the analysis from Lindzen et al 2009 and compared it to results using near-global data (Chung et al 2010). The near-global data find net positive feedback and the authors conclude that the tropical ocean is not an adequate region for determining global climate sensitivity
wouldn't you agree it should be global in nature if you went to measure it against something like a "global" event such as global warming
Debunked by Dessler

Dessler (2011) found a number of errors in Lindzen and Choi (2009) (slightly revised as Lindzen & Choi [2011]). First, Lindzen and Choi's mathematical formula to calculate the Earth's energy budget may violate the laws of thermodynamics - allowing for the impossible situation where ocean warming is able to cause ocean warming. Secondly, Dessler finds that the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times larger than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2 - an order of magnitude too small.
right back to the question we started out with...The oceans are a store; much alike a battery that compiles energy year after year...Clouds are a feed back that comes from the oceans. The oceans warms and then the moisture evaporates off of them into the Atmosphere...When they're in the Atmosphere they cool with height(height=cooling through lapse rate). When the "gas"/vapor(water vapor) raises it expands as it cools...When it reaches its dew point it condenses into clouds. That is called condensation...When the water droplets get big enough(cloud nuli) they fall back to the surface...Oceans control this cycle through as if they cooled=less moisture moving into the Atmosphere to make clouds. Remember my post about 6 months ago when I posted to westwall how a 50 degree day can have far less moisture at its saturation point then 80 degree air...Well there it is. This means that clouds ARE A FEED BACK...Cool the ocean and you will have less precipitation.

Also the ocean as Desser says is a store of heat that takes a hell of a long time to warm or cool. Case in point 20/1 by the energy of the oceans to clouds.
Thirdly, Lindzen and Choi plot a time regression of change in TOA energy flux due to cloud cover changes vs. sea surface temperature changes. They find larger negative slopes in their regression when cloud changes happen before surface temperature changes, vs. positive slopes when temperature changes happen first, and thus conclude that clouds must be causing global warming.

However, Dessler also plots climate model results and finds that they also simulate negative time regression slopes when cloud changes lead temperature changes. Crucially, sea surface temperatures are specified by the models. This means that in these models, clouds respond to sea surface temperature changes, but not vice-versa. This suggests that the lagged result first found by Lindzen and Choi is actually a result of variations in atmospheric circulation driven by changes in sea surface temperature, and contrary to Lindzen's claims, is not evidence that clouds are causing climate change, because in the models which successfully replicate the cloud-temperature lag, temperatures cannot be driven by cloud changes.
The enso cycles are caused by a pressure change within the SOI between 120 east and south America. Pressure is caused by "temperature" differences that cause difference within density...Low pressure is caused by rising air, which is more likely over a warm body of water, while the high pressure is caused by denser air that is caused by air convergenging at the surface, which forms a deeper column of air(higher pressure) pushing down the the surface...Winds flow from high to low pressure.... Warm water moves to surface and evaporates and forms more clouds...BUT the clouds formed by nina are over the southwestern Pacific(throughout the world, but in different positions from nino), so not everything is uneven...this and the fact that most measurements within these scientific studies show a rising of the clouds as the atmosphere expands and a neutral to positive forcing should tell you something; as the trend points it. IS IT possible that they have a slight negative forcing, sure, but not likely to have much effect.[quotes]


Simulating marine boundary layer clouds over the eastern Pacific in a regional climate model with double-moment cloud microphysics


Domain-averaged (30°S–30°N, 150°–60°W) feedback parameters from iRAM range between +1.8 and +1.9 W m−2 K−1. At most locations both the LTS and cloud amount are altered in the global warming cases, but the changes in these variables do not follow the empirical relationship found in the present-day experiments.
AMS Journals Online - The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific—A Regional Model Study
 
Last edited:

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,234
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Ian, Spencer, Lindzen, and the rest constantly are telling us that the climate is far less sensative than what Hansen says it is. Yet, the Arctic is responding far faster than even Hansen thought it could, and the loss of ice in the cryosphere is far more than even the 'alarmists' were predicting.

What we have is real events, not models or hypothesized positive and negative feedbacks, telling us that the climate is far more sensative to the GHGs than anyone has thought. The ongoing weather events worldwide are demostrating that, and we see the practical effect in the prices on the grocery shelves.
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Ian, Spencer, Lindzen, and the rest constantly are telling us that the climate is far less sensative than what Hansen says it is. Yet, the Arctic is responding far faster than even Hansen thought it could, and the loss of ice in the cryosphere is far more than even the 'alarmists' were predicting.

What we have is real events, not models or hypothesized positive and negative feedbacks, telling us that the climate is far more sensative to the GHGs than anyone has thought. The ongoing weather events worldwide are demostrating that, and we see the practical effect in the prices on the grocery shelves.
I know it doesn't matter to a true believer like you rocks, but numerous studies have shown that the bulk of ice loss in the arctic is due to wind, not warming.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;4157073]Ian, Spencer, Lindzen, and the rest constantly are telling us that the climate is far less sensative than what Hansen says it is. Yet, the Arctic is responding far faster than even Hansen thought it could, and the loss of ice in the cryosphere is far more than even the 'alarmists' were predicting.

What we have is real events, not models or hypothesized positive and negative feedbacks, telling us that the climate is far more sensative to the GHGs than anyone has thought. The ongoing weather events worldwide are demostrating that, and we see the practical effect in the prices on the grocery shelves.[/QUOTE]

actually Old Rocks, what L+C, S+B are saying is-
1. because cloud systems are so complex and beyond being able to be calculated on a small grid the climate modellers made assumptions that were written into the models.
2. when run the climate models produce a picture that is different than reality, such the notorious 'missing hot spot'.
3. to improve mankind's knowledge of heat transport by clouds LC and SP have been examining specific events where cloud systems 'burp off' large amounts of energy.

the modellers are proud and protective of their models and dont want to hear anything that will detract from their findings. the other side is making first steps in an area that will have to be investigated sooner or later anyways. the fight is over whose conclusions will prevail. and funding of course. because there is a large possibility that this area of study could flip the models on their head the mainstream scientists have not been in any rush to investigate and indeed have seen fit to quibble over details rather than run with the important idea of understanding an area that holds some of the largest uncertainties in climate studies.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
40,152
Reaction score
5,385
Points
1,830
Ian, Spencer, Lindzen, and the rest constantly are telling us that the climate is far less sensative than what Hansen says it is. Yet, the Arctic is responding far faster than even Hansen thought it could, and the loss of ice in the cryosphere is far more than even the 'alarmists' were predicting.

What we have is real events, not models or hypothesized positive and negative feedbacks, telling us that the climate is far more sensative to the GHGs than anyone has thought. The ongoing weather events worldwide are demostrating that, and we see the practical effect in the prices on the grocery shelves.
actually Old Rocks, what L+C, S+B are saying is-
1. because cloud systems are so complex and beyond being able to be calculated on a small grid the climate modellers made assumptions that were written into the models.
2. when run the climate models produce a picture that is different than reality, such the notorious 'missing hot spot'.
3. to improve mankind's knowledge of heat transport by clouds LC and SP have been examining specific events where cloud systems 'burp off' large amounts of energy.

the modellers are proud and protective of their models and dont want to hear anything that will detract from their findings. the other side is making first steps in an area that will have to be investigated sooner or later anyways. the fight is over whose conclusions will prevail. and funding of course. because there is a large possibility that this area of study could flip the models on their head the mainstream scientists have not been in any rush to investigate and indeed have seen fit to quibble over details rather than run with the important idea of understanding an area that holds some of the largest uncertainties in climate studies.
The deniers are proud and protective of their denials and don't want to hear anything about real data that will detract from their denials and cut off their petro dollars, so they attack models.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Ian, Spencer, Lindzen, and the rest constantly are telling us that the climate is far less sensative than what Hansen says it is. Yet, the Arctic is responding far faster than even Hansen thought it could, and the loss of ice in the cryosphere is far more than even the 'alarmists' were predicting.

What we have is real events, not models or hypothesized positive and negative feedbacks, telling us that the climate is far more sensative to the GHGs than anyone has thought. The ongoing weather events worldwide are demostrating that, and we see the practical effect in the prices on the grocery shelves.
actually Old Rocks, what L+C, S+B are saying is-
1. because cloud systems are so complex and beyond being able to be calculated on a small grid the climate modellers made assumptions that were written into the models.
2. when run the climate models produce a picture that is different than reality, such the notorious 'missing hot spot'.
3. to improve mankind's knowledge of heat transport by clouds LC and SP have been examining specific events where cloud systems 'burp off' large amounts of energy.

the modellers are proud and protective of their models and dont want to hear anything that will detract from their findings. the other side is making first steps in an area that will have to be investigated sooner or later anyways. the fight is over whose conclusions will prevail. and funding of course. because there is a large possibility that this area of study could flip the models on their head the mainstream scientists have not been in any rush to investigate and indeed have seen fit to quibble over details rather than run with the important idea of understanding an area that holds some of the largest uncertainties in climate studies.
The deniers are proud and protective of their denials and don't want to hear anything about real data that will detract from their denials and cut off their petro dollars, so they attack models.
who, exactly, is getting these petro dollars, and how many dollars are they getting?
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Here is a few things to think about---

Like I said above nina and nino's are caused by pressure differences across a "large" portion of the globe...What this does is change the weather patterns like one area will get more rain(clouds), while another will get droughts, but when it changes to the other(nina/nino) the area that got drought within one will get intense rainfall(clouds)...So it's not just clouds directly over the tropics that are important, but the entire effect of it. WHICH I believe mostly cancels each other out as a whole.

---What one makes more clouds? I believe both makes equal or close to it.
*This is proven by the fact that the enso doesn't cause a long term effect on mid to long term temperature. More clouds would mean more energy reflecting to space...


Another thing to think about is the expansion of the troposphere with a warming world...This is most defined within the tropics. As it expands the clouds will form higher in the Atmosphere as it takes longer to reach the point where they can cool enough to condense into clouds.

---What kinds of clouds? Within the tropics there is a better chance of higher based clouds for reasons I stated above. More ability to trap heat at night.
 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,498
Reaction score
4,139
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Anybody who has ever been around somebody who, for natural or accidental reasons, becomes unresponsive or begins to die.......watch those around such a situation respond so much differently. Many people fall apart. Many people remain focused and are unfetterred. In my field, I see this all the time.......some getting hysterical and some people not getting hysterical. Obviously, much has to do with life experience. This is to say that some people just seem to respond to stimulus differently.........some over-react and some under-react. Clearly, such is the case with the whole climate change debate. Some receive information and become quite unnerved.......some not so much. We see it every day in the behavior of our friends, family and colleagues at work.

As a behavioral psychologist, I see clear patterns in people's response to stimulus. It is my job to measure such responses and make decisions accordingly. The lives of the disabled people I serve can depend upon it.

This is exactly what we see in the scientists reponse's to the scientific information on the global warming debate........of course, sans the responses of those scientists motivated by nefarious intent. ( ie: the profiteers). Indeed.......this is where we come up with the old adage that some people see the glass half full and some people see the glass half empty = a product of behavior learned through life experiences of reward and punishment. ANd remember.........we are not talking about scientific laws here.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top