Time to Revisit Climategate

[billvon 3,120]

>MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms

"Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds."

Actually clouds both warm the climate (via trapping heat at night) and cool it (by reflecting heat during the day.) Their effect depends on when they form. Thus VOC's have a similar power to cool and warm the climate. This is why cloud forcings from other factors (like greater evaporation due to higher temperatures) have almost a zero net effect.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms

"Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds."

Actually clouds both warm the climate (via trapping heat at night) and cool it (by reflecting heat during the day.) Their effect depends on when they form. Thus VOC's have a similar power to cool and warm the climate. This is why cloud forcings from other factors (like greater evaporation due to higher temperatures) have almost a zero net effect.

So on a scale of 100, Is that like 3 as 3 is close to zero, or is that like .003 because that is closer to zero.

Or is it like 49 as that is closer to zero than 50 but still further from 100?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,150]

turtlespeed

***>MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms

"Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds."

Actually clouds both warm the climate (via trapping heat at night) and cool it (by reflecting heat during the day.) Their effect depends on when they form. Thus VOC's have a similar power to cool and warm the climate. This is why cloud forcings from other factors (like greater evaporation due to higher temperatures) have almost a zero net effect.

So on a scale of 100, Is that like 3 as 3 is close to zero, or is that like .003 because that is closer to zero.

Or is it like 49 as that is closer to zero than 50 but still further from 100?

Trick question. We all know that 49 is almost more than 50.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

******>MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms

"Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds."

Actually clouds both warm the climate (via trapping heat at night) and cool it (by reflecting heat during the day.) Their effect depends on when they form. Thus VOC's have a similar power to cool and warm the climate. This is why cloud forcings from other factors (like greater evaporation due to higher temperatures) have almost a zero net effect.

So on a scale of 100, Is that like 3 as 3 is close to zero, or is that like .003 because that is closer to zero.

Or is it like 49 as that is closer to zero than 50 but still further from 100?

Trick question. We all know that 49 is almost more than 50.

That would mean that 49 is almost more than 0x32.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[StreetScooby 5]

Another article I came across that summarizes what is incorporated into climate models:


Factor Understood? Contribution to models’ predicted future warming
ENSO No 0%
Ocean Oscillations No 0%
Ocean Currents No 0%
Volcanoes No 0%
Wind No 0%
Water Cycle Partly (built into Water Vapour, below)
The Sun No 0%
Galactic Cosmic Rays (and aerosols) No 0%
Milankovich cycles No 0%
Carbon Dioxide Yes 37%
Water Vapour Partly 22% but suspect
Clouds No 41%, all highly suspect
Other (in case I have missed anything) 0%

From here:
How reliable are the climate models?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>Another article I came across that summarizes what is incorporated into climate models . . .

Wattsupwiththat is the National Enquirer of the climate science community. It is the most popular denier site on the web.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Another article I came across that summarizes what is incorporated into climate models . . .

Wattsupwiththat is the National Enquirer of the climate science community. It is the most popular denier site on the web.

This allows you to ignore and not address content

So fearless of you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

Came across another article, with a foreward by Freeman Dyson:

CARBON DIOXIDE - The good news

Quote

Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm. To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.

Quote

About the author
Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a US delegate to the IPCC, and an IPCC reviewer. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

Quote

Summary
1. This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanityby stimulating
plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall.
2. Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.
3. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields.
4. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild.
5. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation
types.
6. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems.
7. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they
would deteriorate because of global warming.
8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of
extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors.
9. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the
harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms.
10. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are
real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits
of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

Interesting last chapter, too:

Quote

8 Why are claims of damage failing to materialise? 23
Reliance on chains of unvalidated models 23
Climate models overstate global warming 24
Climate models don’t do local well 27
Climate models don’t do precipitation well 28
Adaptation methodology is flawed 28
In summary 32

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 23]

StreetScooby

Came across another article, with a foreward by Freeman Dyson:

CARBON DIOXIDE - The good news

Quote

Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm. To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.

Interesting last chapter, too:

***
8 Why are claims of damage failing to materialise? 23
Reliance on chains of unvalidated models 23
Climate models overstate global warming 24
Climate models don’t do local well 27
Climate models don’t do precipitation well 28
Adaptation methodology is flawed 28
In summary 32

I read that too. Hard to argue with him

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln