Are We Doomed To Arctic Winters In America?

Heard something funny on NPR today. The water you drink today is dinosaur pee. Since the water we have does not increase, all the water we have has been used over and over again. Just a funny.

 

Oh, now this is never admitted by the IPCC et. al...







Seems pretty obvious that water vapor feedback has more cooling than warming.

 

Wow - well, congrats for at least making an ATTEMPT to reference claims - it is more than most denialists do

Pity then that the first link (the second does not take you anywhere near anything that backs the claim) is to the WORST AstroTurf site I think I have ever had the misfortune to click into. Congratulations!!

Next time you find a site that seems to back Willie Wonka ideas like how the "Little Ice Age" somehow disproves global warming - try looking at the references at the bottom of the page - they have to be a bit later than 1975

 

If I recall my hierarchy of greenhouse gases, water is vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas, dwarfing CO2. So now cloud cover alone is enough to swing temperatures by more than people think the planet will actually change? Prior to it NOT changing of course. Gee…I wonder how this level of uncertainty is accounted for by those who have been getting their temperature predictions so wrong? Oh..THAT'S right, they can't be bothered with verifying their statistical aggregations because…someone might notice how poorly they have functioned in the past!! Can't have that among climate scientists now can we?

 

Seems even more obvious that Lord of Planar has no idea that clouds are formed of liquid water, and not water vapor. Seems pretty obvious that Lord of Planar utterly misses the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

 

Only if you average over the entire water column. But most of that heat increase happens at the surface, where temperatures are rising much faster than that.

 

Powerful using what metric?

Anything I have this discussion with people, and I say CO2 is more powerful than CH4, they laugh.

So...

What metric are you using?

To switch metrics in the middle of a discussion would not be good, so select one please.

 

Well, the visible part of cloud is water, but they are both.

I will accept the correction, though I will attempt to be more tactful if you can be too.

I have repeatedly stated H2O is a greenhouse gas. I have never claimed otherwise. Please stop trying to build a strawman, you'll mess up the snow. It's almost time to build a snowman in my yard.

Ever see good photos from the space shuttle. Notice how dark the shadows are over the land where clouds cover the land.

Clouds do both. They block more upward longwave from the ground, increasing the greenhouse effect, but at the same time, they reflect most of the shortwave, preventing it from heating the surface.

The cooling effect by reducing direct and indirect solar shortwave is greater than the increased greenhouse effect of the longwave. Therefore, we have a net cooling as clouds increase coverage of the globe.

Just look at the constellation graphs in post 77.

 

Most of the increase happens at the surface where the sun warms it.

 

Nope. Already disproven, in multiple ways.

 

Thank you.

Actually it depends on the type of cloud. Cirrus clouds hardly block shortwave at all, but are very effective at blocking longwave. Thus cirrus are almost entirely warming.

I have looked at them. And the first thing I notice is that this is ISCCP data, which is known to understate high altitude cirrus clouds by about 12%. That's a lot of warming to miss.

 

It's not the heat, it's the change in the heat. The Sun has been getting cooler while the ocean has been getting warmer. Go and convince anyone that the Sun is responsible for that, because I want to hear the laughing.

 

I find it amusing that you think you know everything about this.

 

And I think it's pathetic that you know so little.

 

There is no discussion with faith because with faith, you are sure.

 

The cloud cover percentage has changed too.

 

Quinn (2010) wrote: “Evidence indicates that global warming is closely related to a wide range of solar-terrestrial phenomenon, from the sun's magnetic storms and fluctuating solar wind all the way to the Earth's core motions. Changes in the Solar and Earth magnetic fields, changes in the Earth's orientation and rotation rate, as well as the gravitational effects associated with the relative barycenter motions of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and other planets, all play key roles. Clear one-to-one correspondence exists among these parameters and the Global Temperature Anomaly on three separate time scales.”

What is interesting to note is that the solar models more accurately show the current hiatus that the CO2 models don't.

 

What is interesting is that you've cast your lot in with astrology and psuedoscience. Kindly explain how the solar system barycenter affects Earth's climate, and why it has not done so prior to 1750.

Or just admit that you're a sucker for any crackpot idea that comes along.

 

Evidently you only believe in peer reviewed papers that back up your faith. I would read a little wider if I were you. It is not uncommon for those of the faith to resort to childish accusations of heresy.

 

No, actually, it probably has not.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028083/full

 

In other words: zero evidence, zero logic, zero argument.

Denierstan in a nutshell.

 

Oh, you have evidence? Please, oh please, provide a citation for this allegedly successful solar model.

 

http://www.climatedialogue.org/

 

According to your link, type cloud cover percentage has changed.

 

Cloud cover is not one of the things the CO2 models do very well. Also, according to the IPCC the sun has little influence so is also not modeled. There are many other processes that the CO2 models do not model or model very well.