"Skeptics" tend to have difficulty with nuance. (He said it would go up but they say it went down last year... I just don't know WHO to believe!). They also tend not to read original sources but rather like to read spin from sites with unintentionally ironic names.
You have referenced a NASA post that confirm exactly what I noted above (that droughts come with floods), and is exactly consistent with everything Hanson has ever published (regardless of what someone may recall from a conversation that he may have had 20 years ago). Here is what NASA really said: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world's ocean in response to global warming.
While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.
So what's up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.
Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.
Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. "By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet," says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. "This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.
But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.
"We" don't need to lead to benefit. Just as the US carried the ball for the rest of the world for decades, now the world can innovate and WE can get the benefits without risk.
Great. We can swap roles with China. They can innovate and we can manufacture their products. This doesn't seem like a very strategic plan.
Innovation can't happen without accepting the risk that it might fail.
The political reaction to a failed investment in Solyndra is a prime example. The company had some interesting solar cell technology that looked very promising. It has been argued that by increasing our investment in alternative energy we can kick oil and coal and become leaders of the new energy economy. Unfortunately we don't have the stomach for high risk/reward investments like we used to.
Actually, as the earth heats, we can expect to find more arable land.
Yup. Great news for those parts of Canada that are currently uninhabited. Bad for the USA and South America. See figure 3 in the following link for a projection of where we can expect increased drought this century: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110928_Butterfly.pdf
The state of emergency in Tunisia has economists worried that we may be seeing the beginnings of a second wave of global food riots. Battered by bad weather and increasing demand from the developing world, the global food supply system is buckling under the strain.
This month, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that its food price index jumped 32 percent in the second half of 2010 — surpassing the previous record, set in the early summer of 2008, when deadly clashes over food broke out around the world, from Haiti to Somalia
The price of grains began to rise last fall after fires in Russia wiped out hundreds of thousands of acres of grains and heavy rain destroyed much of Canada’s wheat crop. The problems were followed by hot, dry weather in Argentina that devastated the soybean crop of the key exporter. This month, floods in Australia destroyed much of the country’s wheat crop.
Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali on Thursday vowed to reduce the price of staples such as sugar, milk and bread,but the pledge wasn’t enough to placate the thousands of protesters who mobbed the capital, Tunis, on Friday to demand his ouster. The country’s prime minister, Mohammed Ghannouchi, has appeared on state TV to announce he is assuming power.
The height of the current interglacial was about 8000 years ago. Temperatures have been (very) slowly dropping back down since then - until recently that is. The magnitude of the current changes in the arctic are very troubling, and the rate of decrease is accelerating. The following graph shows that arctic summer ice was fairly steady at 16,000,000km^3 up until the 1990's. We are now down to 4,500,000 km^3 : http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e885c65ac970d-pi
This has led some to characterize this as an arctic death spiral.
Data is available here:http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
Right. So this paper that Spencer says blows a gaping whole in AGW actually only rehashes decades old Ramanathan work. Go Spencer! (and to be honest, he is your last best hope!)
Try again! Harder!
Well, it's hard to dumb this down any further but I'll do my best:
Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback.
YOU: Not according to the latest research
Author: this paper...does not attempt to diagnose cloud feedback (you moron).
First, I'd like to thank you again for illustrating the point of my last post: You continue to show that you cannot be persuaded by any amount of logic, reason, or facts.
"Thus, the radiative effect of changes in cloud cover or properties is highly sensitive not only to cloud type (height, optical thickness, extent) but also to the time of year and time of day at which the changes in cloud properties take place. This is of importance in assessing cloud climate feedbacks which contribute substantially to uncertainty in climate prediction"
Well, clearly Spencer is quite the thought leader for regurgitating what was already discussed decades earlier by Ramanathan. Unfortunately for poor misunderstood Spencer, he has used the following words when defending his paper: "(the) weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback."
You are suggesting that what Spencer claims in the media is not supported by his paper. On that we can agree.
So who is right? You?
Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback.
or the author of the very paper that you cite above?
I was surprised that this paper was linked to cloud feedback since, as you mention, it attempts to quantify the well known influence of cloud on Earth’s radiation budget (at the top of the atmosphere, at the surface and within the atmosphere and also during day and night) and does not attempt to diagnose cloud feedback.
Of course you believe that you are right and the author is wrong. You are truly broken.
But just because we can't be together doesn't mean we can't just be friends:)
Well... thanks for illustrating.
Clearly I cannot convince you that the paper you cited does not support Spencer's contention that clouds are a negative feedback. I suspect that you will neither be convinced by the author of the paper:
I was surprised that this paper was linked to cloud feedback since, as you mention, it attempts to quantify the well known influence of cloud on Earth’s radiation budget (at the top of the atmosphere, at the surface and within the atmosphere and also during day and night) and does not attempt to diagnose cloud feedback.
Nor by Spencer himself:
This paper is not about cloud feedbackit is about the average effect of clouds on the climate system, which the IPCC, Trenberth, Dessler, et al. will all agree is a cooling effect. It is an update of the early estimates from ERBE many years ago.
Nor by any amount of logic, reason, or facts. Adieu.
Note the "could have" - this is speculation. They *might* be consistent, but no such claim is being made.
This is the language of science bucko. Get used to it. Clearly they are consistent.
Okay, shall I just let you win this particular battle, so you lose the war?:) If the total CO2 forcing is mostly non-anthropogenic, then why would we worry about the insignificant anthropogenic portion?:)
Honestly you are too stupid for words. The non-anthropogenic portion of the CO2 is preexisting. It is not causing a change in the climate.
Obviously we are not going to convince each other, so let's sum up our positions and end this thread:
My position is:
The literature that you referenced does not support Spencer's claim that clouds are a negative feedback.
The literature only shows that clouds are a large negative forcing.
This is not a novel claim as shown by Ramanathan 1989.
This also does not imply that clouds are a large negative feedback as shown by Ramanathan 1989.
In fact Ramanathan 1989 specifically states that BECAUSE clouds are a large negative forcing we may find that they are a significant positive feedback.
Your position is:
The literature that you referenced shows that clouds are a negative feedback
A negative cloud forcing is inconsistent with the IPCC finding that clouds are a small positive feedback.
Ramanathans many examples of positive cloud feedbacks all go something like: "So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing"
The fact that the total forcing of clouds is greater than the forcing of the anthropogenic portion of CO2 implies that we don't need to worry about CO2.
The fact that the total forcing of CO2 is greater than the forcing of clouds and the anthropogenic portion of CO2 implies that we don't need to worry about CO2.
Hopefully it is clear to any semi-literate individual reading through this thread that your position is not supported by the literature (not even by the literature that you cite!).
You seem to believe that clouds have a positive feedback
WRONG! (Although this is what most GCM's show)
This is *your* postulation, not Ramanthan's.
WRONG! From the paper: "The positive cloud feedback mechanism implies that the size of the (negative) SW cloud forcing would decrease significantly"
simply *discussing* them in the same paper does *not* make them consistent.
WRONG! In fact, he states that BECAUSE clouds are such a strong negative forcing they can play a significant role as a feedback: "The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling. Hence, small changes in the cloud-radiative forcing fields can play a significant role as a climate feedback mechanism." Ramanathan then gives an example of a POSITIVE cloud feedback: "during past glaciations a migration toward the equator of the field of strong, negative cloud-radiative forcing, in response to a similar migration of cooler waters, could have significantly amplified oceanic cooling and continental glaciation." Clearly they are consistent.
that *if* in some mythical world there was a feedback with temperature that somehow made clouds *less* negative (less clouds with more heat?),
WRONG! It is right in the paper: "An initial tendency for drying causes decreased cloudiness, which leads to increased solar heating of the soil, thus amplifying tendency toward drying. The positive cloud feedback mechanism implies that the size of the (negative) SW cloud forcing would decrease significantly during a drought event. According to Manabe and Wetherald the decrease could be as much as 25 W/m2 in the Great Plains." In other words, he is suggesting that the "mythical" world (as you put it) is Earth.
No, Ramanthan says that cloud forcing is negative,.. it has such a big impact (even by his count, four times any effect CO2 could have),.
WRONG! Ramanathan is comparing the total cloud forcing to only the anthropogenic portion of the carbon forcing. If he were to compare total cloud forcing to total CO2 forcing he would have stated that the cloud forcing is many times smaller than the CO2 forcing.
He's not jumping off a cliff and saying "I've measured cloud forcing, and therefore we can expect positive cloud feedback" - that's all you baby:)
That is me? WRONG! Way to slay that straw man!
Good job. You have continued your streak. Not a single true statement. Impressive!
all he's doing is *postulating* a *possible* positive feedback
Trust me, that postulation goes nothing like: "So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing?" You are so far off it is laughable.
But let's do review the chain:
You citing Watts: latest research shows that clouds are a HUGE negative feedback.
Science says: Nope. Paper is talking about net radiative forcing, not feedback.
You: Oh yeah? Explain how IPCC can show positive feedback while paper shows negative net radiative forcing?
Science says: IPCC is talking about feedback while paper is talking about net radiative forcing. (see previous answer!)
You: I still don't believe you.
Science says: See Ramanthan 1989 where he discusses negative cloud forcing and positive cloud feedback in the same paper. Clearly these are not inconsistent.
You: So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing?
Science says:Did you even read the paper??? (btw, I can't believe you paid for a subscription to something you clearly can't comprehend!)
You (Moving goal posts): Well Ramanthan says that cloud forcing is large and negative!
Science says: Exactly (and in 1989 so clearly this new paper is not a shock to the scientific community). He also says that we may expect positive cloud feedback. See how these are not inconsistent? (see previous answer!)
You (moving goal posts): But Ramanthan doesn't say that clouds certainly WILL create a positive feedback, he is merely postulating based on physics and historic precedents.
science says: So? What has that to do with the fact that a large negative net cloud forcing is neither novel nor inconsistent with a positive cloud feedback?
So basically you are wrong on every account. Good job!
Sure I read the paper. It just doesn't say what you think it says:)
Got it, so Ramanthan 1989 says: "more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing" Yup. Clearly I'm the one misunderstanding.
So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing?
Yes, that is exactly the line of logic that is followed in Ramanthan 1989. You have shown excellent reading comprehension. Oh, wait a minute! After rereading your summary I see there is a flaw in the logic! 20 years of science flushed down the drain! Please publish your brilliant analysis and the swines at the Royal Society will finally have their comeuppance./sarcasm. You didn't actually read the paper did you?
"The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2."
And yet somehow we're worried about CO2? Maybe the real problem we should be addressing is cloud formation!
The cloud forcing is preexisting. The forcing from doubling CO2 is new. Get it? This is pretty basic stuff.
Luckily for Watts his readership is either too eager for what he sells or too stupid to know that it's a crock.
So a net *cooling* from clouds of 21 W/m2 is somehow compatible with the idea that clouds are a *positive* feedback?
Oh god. You use these words as if you know what they mean (but clearly you don't). Feedback refers to how a forcing responds to changes in temperature. If the negative forcing decreases with an increase of heat then you have a positive feedback. Get it? (finally?) See Ramanthan 1989 for a discussion of how the negative cloud forcing will likely play a significant role as a feedback and warm the planet further. You will need to look up what forcing and feedback mean before reading.
You make yourself look like a bit of a dolt when you site Watts as an authority. The paper in question says nothing at all about feedbacks. This paper is on the net radiative effect of clouds. The conclusions are not surprising and confirm the consensus view. Watt's obviously doesn't know what a feedback is. (Do you?)
How many hundred year droughts can you spot in that chart? lol
Well, since it only goes back 100 years I guess the answer must be 1. The droughts prior to 2011 are clearly not 100 year droughts because they have precedents within the century.
I remember the 70s and into the 80s when this began, they called global cooling then. Which is the problem some people are having, including myself, believing the current concepts.
Consider that in spite of a then moderate cooling trend, and in spite of natural cycles driving us towards cooling, most papers in the 70's predicted global warming. They were right. They had a physical basis for the prediction. They tested the prediction. They were right.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there is no way to spot an outlier when comparing two years. Obviously they are equally different from each other.
"Skeptics" tend to have difficulty with nuance. (He said it would go up but they say it went down last year... I just don't know WHO to believe!). They also tend not to read original sources but rather like to read spin from sites with unintentionally ironic names.
You have referenced a NASA post that confirm exactly what I noted above (that droughts come with floods), and is exactly consistent with everything Hanson has ever published (regardless of what someone may recall from a conversation that he may have had 20 years ago). Here is what NASA really said: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world's ocean in response to global warming.
While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.
So what's up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.
Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.
Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. "By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet," says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. "This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.
But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.
"We" don't need to lead to benefit. Just as the US carried the ball for the rest of the world for decades, now the world can innovate and WE can get the benefits without risk.
Great. We can swap roles with China. They can innovate and we can manufacture their products. This doesn't seem like a very strategic plan.
Innovation can't happen without accepting the risk that it might fail.
The political reaction to a failed investment in Solyndra is a prime example. The company had some interesting solar cell technology that looked very promising. It has been argued that by increasing our investment in alternative energy we can kick oil and coal and become leaders of the new energy economy. Unfortunately we don't have the stomach for high risk/reward investments like we used to.
See figure 3 in the following link for a projection of where we can expect increased drought this century
You forgot, we also get increased precipitation from global warming! It'll be warmcool and drywet everywhere! :)
Well, where do you think the water from the areas experiencing drought will end up? Droughts often coincide with increased precipitation elsewhere.
Funny, Texas never had droughts before we started releasing CO2...
Not like this. Check out the second graph after this link to see just how far outside the bounds of normal this current drought is. It's off the chart. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/texas-drought-spot-the-outlier/
Actually, as the earth heats, we can expect to find more arable land.
Yup. Great news for those parts of Canada that are currently uninhabited. Bad for the USA and South America. See figure 3 in the following link for a projection of where we can expect increased drought this century: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110928_Butterfly.pdf
Here is a wry post on the current drought conditions in Texas. This may be a hint of what is to come: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/09/texas-drought-good-news-and-bad-news/
First the really good news: according to the latest US Drought Monitor, only 0.83% of Texas is in moderate drought.
Next the moderately good news: only 2.42% of Texas is in severe drought.
Not so good news: 8.88% of Texas is in extreme drought.
Bad news: that leaves fully 87.83% of Texas in exceptional drought, the worst drought category.
The Washington post gives some recent examples where spikes in global food prices, driven mainly by recent droughts and floods, are leading to violence: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2011/01/spike_in_global_food_prices_tr.html
The state of emergency in Tunisia has economists worried that we may be seeing the beginnings of a second wave of global food riots. Battered by bad weather and increasing demand from the developing world, the global food supply system is buckling under the strain.
This month, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that its food price index jumped 32 percent in the second half of 2010 — surpassing the previous record, set in the early summer of 2008, when deadly clashes over food broke out around the world, from Haiti to Somalia
The price of grains began to rise last fall after fires in Russia wiped out hundreds of thousands of acres of grains and heavy rain destroyed much of Canada’s wheat crop. The problems were followed by hot, dry weather in Argentina that devastated the soybean crop of the key exporter. This month, floods in Australia destroyed much of the country’s wheat crop.
Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali on Thursday vowed to reduce the price of staples such as sugar, milk and bread ,but the pledge wasn’t enough to placate the thousands of protesters who mobbed the capital, Tunis, on Friday to demand his ouster. The country’s prime minister, Mohammed Ghannouchi, has appeared on state TV to announce he is assuming power.
The height of the current interglacial was about 8000 years ago. Temperatures have been (very) slowly dropping back down since then - until recently that is. The magnitude of the current changes in the arctic are very troubling, and the rate of decrease is accelerating. The following graph shows that arctic summer ice was fairly steady at 16,000,000km^3 up until the 1990's. We are now down to 4,500,000 km^3 : http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e885c65ac970d-pi
This has led some to characterize this as an arctic death spiral.
Data is available here:http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
Try again! Harder!
Well, it's hard to dumb this down any further but I'll do my best:
Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback.
YOU: Not according to the latest research
Author: this paper ...does not attempt to diagnose cloud feedback (you moron).
See the disparity? Of course not.
"Thus, the radiative effect of changes in cloud cover or properties is highly sensitive not only to cloud type (height, optical thickness, extent) but also to the time of year and time of day at which the changes in cloud properties take place. This is of importance in assessing cloud climate feedbacks which contribute substantially to uncertainty in climate prediction"
Well, clearly Spencer is quite the thought leader for regurgitating what was already discussed decades earlier by Ramanathan. Unfortunately for poor misunderstood Spencer, he has used the following words when defending his paper: "(the) weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback."
You are suggesting that what Spencer claims in the media is not supported by his paper. On that we can agree.
So who is right? You?
Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback.
Not according to the latest research: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/
or the author of the very paper that you cite above?
I was surprised that this paper was linked to cloud feedback since, as you mention, it attempts to quantify the well known influence of cloud on Earth’s radiation budget (at the top of the atmosphere, at the surface and within the atmosphere and also during day and night) and does not attempt to diagnose cloud feedback.
Of course you believe that you are right and the author is wrong. You are truly broken.
You are deluded.
I miss you too! :)
But just because we can't be together doesn't mean we can't just be friends :)
Well... thanks for illustrating.
Clearly I cannot convince you that the paper you cited does not support Spencer's contention that clouds are a negative feedback. I suspect that you will neither be convinced by the author of the paper:
I was surprised that this paper was linked to cloud feedback since, as you mention, it attempts to quantify the well known influence of cloud on Earth’s radiation budget (at the top of the atmosphere, at the surface and within the atmosphere and also during day and night) and does not attempt to diagnose cloud feedback.
Nor by Spencer himself:
This paper is not about cloud feedbackit is about the average effect of clouds on the climate system, which the IPCC, Trenberth, Dessler, et al. will all agree is a cooling effect. It is an update of the early estimates from ERBE many years ago.
Nor by any amount of logic, reason, or facts. Adieu.
You are deluded.
Note the "could have" - this is speculation. They *might* be consistent, but no such claim is being made.
This is the language of science bucko. Get used to it. Clearly they are consistent.
Okay, shall I just let you win this particular battle, so you lose the war? :) If the total CO2 forcing is mostly non-anthropogenic, then why would we worry about the insignificant anthropogenic portion? :)
Honestly you are too stupid for words. The non-anthropogenic portion of the CO2 is preexisting. It is not causing a change in the climate.
Obviously we are not going to convince each other, so let's sum up our positions and end this thread:
My position is:
The literature that you referenced does not support Spencer's claim that clouds are a negative feedback.
The literature only shows that clouds are a large negative forcing.
This is not a novel claim as shown by Ramanathan 1989.
This also does not imply that clouds are a large negative feedback as shown by Ramanathan 1989.
In fact Ramanathan 1989 specifically states that BECAUSE clouds are a large negative forcing we may find that they are a significant positive feedback.
Your position is:
The literature that you referenced shows that clouds are a negative feedback
A negative cloud forcing is inconsistent with the IPCC finding that clouds are a small positive feedback.
Ramanathans many examples of positive cloud feedbacks all go something like: "So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing"
The fact that the total forcing of clouds is greater than the forcing of the anthropogenic portion of CO2 implies that we don't need to worry about CO2.
The fact that the total forcing of CO2 is greater than the forcing of clouds and the anthropogenic portion of CO2 implies that we don't need to worry about CO2.
Hopefully it is clear to any semi-literate individual reading through this thread that your position is not supported by the literature (not even by the literature that you cite!).
You seem to believe that clouds have a positive feedback
WRONG! (Although this is what most GCM's show)
This is *your* postulation, not Ramanthan's.
WRONG! From the paper: "The positive cloud feedback mechanism implies that the size of the (negative) SW cloud forcing would decrease significantly"
simply *discussing* them in the same paper does *not* make them consistent.
WRONG! In fact, he states that BECAUSE clouds are such a strong negative forcing they can play a significant role as a feedback: "The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling. Hence, small changes in the cloud-radiative forcing fields can play a significant role as a climate feedback mechanism." Ramanathan then gives an example of a POSITIVE cloud feedback: "during past glaciations a migration toward the equator of the field of strong, negative cloud-radiative forcing, in response to a similar migration of cooler waters, could have significantly amplified oceanic cooling and continental glaciation." Clearly they are consistent.
that *if* in some mythical world there was a feedback with temperature that somehow made clouds *less* negative (less clouds with more heat?),
WRONG! It is right in the paper: "An initial tendency for drying causes decreased cloudiness, which leads to increased solar heating of the soil, thus amplifying tendency toward drying. The positive cloud feedback mechanism implies that the size of the (negative) SW cloud forcing would decrease significantly during a drought event. According to Manabe and Wetherald the decrease could be as much as 25 W/m2 in the Great Plains." In other words, he is suggesting that the "mythical" world (as you put it) is Earth.
No, Ramanthan says that cloud forcing is negative, .. it has such a big impact (even by his count, four times any effect CO2 could have),.
WRONG! Ramanathan is comparing the total cloud forcing to only the anthropogenic portion of the carbon forcing. If he were to compare total cloud forcing to total CO2 forcing he would have stated that the cloud forcing is many times smaller than the CO2 forcing.
He's not jumping off a cliff and saying "I've measured cloud forcing, and therefore we can expect positive cloud feedback" - that's all you baby :)
That is me? WRONG! Way to slay that straw man!
Good job. You have continued your streak. Not a single true statement. Impressive!
all he's doing is *postulating* a *possible* positive feedback
Trust me, that postulation goes nothing like: "So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing?" You are so far off it is laughable.
But let's do review the chain:
You citing Watts: latest research shows that clouds are a HUGE negative feedback.
Science says: Nope. Paper is talking about net radiative forcing, not feedback.
You: Oh yeah? Explain how IPCC can show positive feedback while paper shows negative net radiative forcing?
Science says: IPCC is talking about feedback while paper is talking about net radiative forcing. (see previous answer!)
You: I still don't believe you.
Science says: See Ramanthan 1989 where he discusses negative cloud forcing and positive cloud feedback in the same paper. Clearly these are not inconsistent.
You: So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing?
Science says:Did you even read the paper??? (btw, I can't believe you paid for a subscription to something you clearly can't comprehend!)
You (Moving goal posts): Well Ramanthan says that cloud forcing is large and negative!
Science says: Exactly (and in 1989 so clearly this new paper is not a shock to the scientific community). He also says that we may expect positive cloud feedback. See how these are not inconsistent? (see previous answer!)
You (moving goal posts): But Ramanthan doesn't say that clouds certainly WILL create a positive feedback, he is merely postulating based on physics and historic precedents.
science says: So? What has that to do with the fact that a large negative net cloud forcing is neither novel nor inconsistent with a positive cloud feedback?
So basically you are wrong on every account. Good job!
Sure I read the paper. It just doesn't say what you think it says :)
Got it, so Ramanthan 1989 says: "more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing" Yup. Clearly I'm the one misunderstanding.
So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing?
Yes, that is exactly the line of logic that is followed in Ramanthan 1989. You have shown excellent reading comprehension. Oh, wait a minute! After rereading your summary I see there is a flaw in the logic! 20 years of science flushed down the drain! Please publish your brilliant analysis and the swines at the Royal Society will finally have their comeuppance. /sarcasm. You didn't actually read the paper did you?
"The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2."
And yet somehow we're worried about CO2? Maybe the real problem we should be addressing is cloud formation!
The cloud forcing is preexisting. The forcing from doubling CO2 is new. Get it? This is pretty basic stuff. Luckily for Watts his readership is either too eager for what he sells or too stupid to know that it's a crock.
So a net *cooling* from clouds of 21 W/m2 is somehow compatible with the idea that clouds are a *positive* feedback?
Oh god. You use these words as if you know what they mean (but clearly you don't). Feedback refers to how a forcing responds to changes in temperature. If the negative forcing decreases with an increase of heat then you have a positive feedback. Get it? (finally?) See Ramanthan 1989 for a discussion of how the negative cloud forcing will likely play a significant role as a feedback and warm the planet further. You will need to look up what forcing and feedback mean before reading.
Go ahead, explain how IPCC models that depend on clouds having a net heating of the climate system jive with this.
Because the IPCC is talking about feedbacks while the paper is talking about the net radiative effect, dumbass.
Not according to the latest research: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
You make yourself look like a bit of a dolt when you site Watts as an authority. The paper in question says nothing at all about feedbacks. This paper is on the net radiative effect of clouds. The conclusions are not surprising and confirm the consensus view. Watt's obviously doesn't know what a feedback is. (Do you?)
Interesting. What is the libertarian solution to global warming?
Tell them about your theory that seasons are caused by ocean currents rather than the tilt of the Earth.
How many hundred year droughts can you spot in that chart? lol
Well, since it only goes back 100 years I guess the answer must be 1. The droughts prior to 2011 are clearly not 100 year droughts because they have precedents within the century.
I remember the 70s and into the 80s when this began, they called global cooling then. Which is the problem some people are having, including myself, believing the current concepts.
Consider that in spite of a then moderate cooling trend, and in spite of natural cycles driving us towards cooling, most papers in the 70's predicted global warming. They were right. They had a physical basis for the prediction. They tested the prediction. They were right.