• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hottest September on record. The librul conspiracy continues.

longview said:
I am not sure there is a consensus on even the sign of the feedback from clouds.
There does seem to be an inverse correlation between cloud cover and temperature,
but it also seems to cycle seasonally.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif
I have also found graphs that show total cloud cover increasing,
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/cloud-v-temp.png?w=614
Click to expand...

It's not a surprise that cloud amount has increased as the world warms. Warmer climates support more atmospheric water vapor. In the tropics there are more clouds than it the high latitudes. Any increase in cloud amount is naturally expected as a consequence of Classius-Clapyron equation. Warm air supports higher levels of water vapor than cooler air and what goes up must come down. The average atmospheric lifetime of a water vapor molecule is 11 days. It precipitates out.

Where is the evidence that the above well established explanation does not explain any increase in global cloud amount? Where is the evidence that cosmic rays are actually having an effect? Simply claiming that they could does not suffice. The latest evidence from experiments at CERN would indicate that cosmic ray flux does not significantly modulate cloud amount.
 
Threegoofs said:
Science is hard.

Apparently geography is hard for some people, too. The US comprises about 2% of the total area of the globe.
Click to expand...

What's hard and difficult is to get accurate data from the rest of the globe.
 
Russell797 said:
It's not a surprise that cloud amount has increased as the world warms. Warmer climates support more atmospheric water vapor. In the tropics there are more clouds than it the high latitudes. Any increase in cloud amount is naturally expected as a consequence of Classius-Clapyron equation. Warm air supports higher levels of water vapor than cooler air and what goes up must come down. The average atmospheric lifetime of a water vapor molecule is 11 days. It precipitates out.

Where is the evidence that the above well established explanation does not explain any increase in global cloud amount? Where is the evidence that cosmic rays are actually having an effect? Simply claiming that they could does not suffice. The latest evidence from experiments at CERN would indicate that cosmic ray flux does not significantly modulate cloud amount.
Click to expand...
I suspect the ability to tickle out a pattern is just as complex as the ability to ferret out the amplified warming that added CO2 will theoretically cause.
The numbers mostly live in the subjective noise.
There is a reason the IPCC ties uncertainty about the temperature to clouds,
we simply do not have a full understanding of how they interact with radiation.
 
longview said:
I suspect the ability to tickle out a pattern is just as complex as the ability to ferret out the amplified warming that added CO2 will theoretically cause.
The numbers mostly live in the subjective noise.
There is a reason the IPCC ties uncertainty about the temperature to clouds,
we simply do not have a full understanding of how they interact with radiation.
Click to expand...

We agree on the uncertainty of clouds and aerosols in the determination of climate sensitivity. What I am saying is that the clouds are a feedback, rather than a forcing.

Cosmic rays would render clouds a forcing, being independent from internal influence and instead on the modulating effect of the solar cycle. That's why the skeptics latch onto this research hoping to show that there is another primary factor other than CO2.
 
Russell797 said:
We agree on the uncertainty of clouds and aerosols in the determination of climate sensitivity. What I am saying is that the clouds are a feedback, rather than a forcing.

Cosmic rays would render clouds a forcing, being independent from internal influence and instead on the modulating effect of the solar cycle. That's why the skeptics latch onto this research hoping to show that there is another primary factor other than CO2.
Click to expand...
I think clouds could well be a forcing as well.
Feedback is what happens to the energy after it is already here, clouds are capable of reflecting
very large portions of the solar energy before it reaches the ground.
 
longview said:
I think clouds could well be a forcing as well.
Feedback is what happens to the energy after it is already here, clouds are capable of reflecting
very large portions of the solar energy before it reaches the ground.
Click to expand...

Back up a bit. The reason for increased or decreased cloudiness in the first place is temperature variation. Once the clouds are there they do as you say.

You can observe this effect on a daily basis. More convective clouds form during day light hours than at night because the surface is warmer during the day.
 
Russell797 said:
Back up a bit. The reason for increased or decreased cloudiness in the first place is temperature variation. Once the clouds are there they do as you say.

You can observe this effect on a daily basis. More convective clouds form during day light hours than at night because the surface is warmer during the day.
Click to expand...
And clouds have a strong seasonal cycle, but all this has nothing to do with CO2.
I think the argument for the Cosmic ray theory is that a stronger magnetic sun causes less (a few%) clouds to form,
while a weaker magnetic sun causes more clouds to form.
This function causes a dampening of the normal heating and cooling cycles.
I am not sure there is sufficient data to even make that determination.
The real problem with all these theories, is that the systems are more complex than our ability.
Making statements about signals in the noise, is sort of meaningless.
The real long term problems, are that we will run short of inexpensive hydrocarbon fuels, and
we are overwhelming our freshwater supplies.
Solving the energy issue, will deal with any possible CO2 issue as a side effect, and could solve the water
problem as well.
 
Threegoofs said:
No- it's been happening since 1880.

But I understand you think it's all a big Conspiracy.
Click to expand...

So besides the averages, you are able to get the Minimum and Maximum temperatures
month by month and area by area for the rest of the globe? As convenient as the
presentation found at NOAA's Climate at a Glance?

The minimums and maximums tell a better story than just the averages. If you read
the IPCC reports they tell you that the warming, and there is warming is occurring
at night, in winter and in the higher latitudes. Here in the United States that's true
to the extent that our weather here for most of the country east of the Rockies is
in fact milder than in previous decades. Winters are warmer and summers are
cooler. Here's a map of summer time temperatures that includes June 21st through
September 21st that shows where the cooling trends in the U.S. are:

5pgzmf.jpg
 
Russell797 said:
I asked for evidence that cloud amount has been altered by the varying flux of cosmic rays. We know the cosmic ray flux varies. That is not the question.
Click to expand...

You should read more carefully. Please note the links.

[FONT=&quot]The activity of the sun manifests its self in many ways. One of them is through a variable solar wind. This flux of energetic particles and entangled magnetic field flows outwards from the sun, and impedes on a flux of more energetic particles, the cosmic rays, which come from outside the solar system. Namely, a more active sun with a stronger solar wind will attenuate the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth. The key point in this picture is that the cosmic rays are the main physical mechanism controlling the amount of ionization in the troposphere (the bottom 10 kms or so). Thus, a more active sun will reduce the flux of cosmic rays, and with it, the amount of tropospheric ionization. As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment. A more active sun will therefore inhibit the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and the resulting low altitude marine clouds will have larger drops, which are less white and live shorter, thereby warming Earth. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Today, there is ample evidence to support this picture (a succinct introduction can be found [/FONT]here[FONT=&quot]). For example, it was found that independent galactic induced variations in the cosmic ray flux, which have nothing to do with solar activity do too [/FONT]affect climate[FONT=&quot] as one should expect from such a link. There are many more examples. [/FONT][Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): These recently published experimental resultsstroingly point towards the validity of this link, as expected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom