NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it's the thickening of the antarctic ice cap.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?

... proof that the West kept up with their heating bill?

It's the fact the world can't make it's fucking mind up. Killing us, saving us, killing us, saving us, make your damn mind up!

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?
The work of elves?

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?

Screw the polar bears, save the penguins!

:D

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it's the thickening of the antarctic ice cap.

I'm going to have to go with Ifreann on this one. In general, this is what's known in the science game as "data."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?

Well, as the main article (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html) puts it:


But the panel also expected that climate change would trigger an increase in snowfall over the Antarctic continent, as increased evaporation from the oceans puts more moisture into the air.

Shh... the scientists that preach global warming won't like to hear conflicting data. They might have to return to the new ice age theory, and they know we are watching this time.

A thinning on the margins and a thickening inland in the Arctic is consistent with Global Warming models.

Much of the "data" surrounding global warming is not definitive enough. The people touting panic and worry about global warming don't know what they're talking about. The data surrounding climate patterns in the short term (i.e. the past and future few hundred years) is sketchy at best. We do not really know all that much about climate prediction. The different models "supporting" global warming often differ by large factors, which means they don't really know anything enough to make their definitive assertion that we are in danger of global warming. Global warming is an issue to be studied by scientists before know-nothing politicians begin arguing over it to fix it, or how to fix it, or if it even needs to be fixed or can be.

Shh... the scientists that preach global warming won't like to hear conflicting data. They might have to return to the new ice age theory, and they know we are watching this time.

As was pointed out in the post above yours, this is a prediction of global warming. Also, you confuse two completely seperate studies. There is no conflict between the ice age study in teh seventies and global warming studies.

Shh... the scientists that preach global warming won't like to hear conflicting data. They might have to return to the new ice age theory, and they know we are watching this time.

Shh... it's consistent with global warming models.

Much of the "data" surrounding global warming is not definitive enough. The people touting panic and worry about global warming don't know what they're talking about. The data surrounding climate patterns in the short term (i.e. the past and future few hundred years) is sketchy at best. We do not really know all that much about climate prediction. The different models "supporting" global warming often differ by large factors, which means they don't really know anything enough to make their definitive assertion that we are in danger of global warming. Global warming is an issue to be studied by scientists before know-nothing politicians begin arguing over it to fix it, or how to fix it, or if it even needs to be fixed or can be.

And yet they all* agree that global warming is happening, in fact they predicted it before it actually came true. They also all* agree that we are causing it. Please, when you post your reply about some guy here or there that disagrees, make sure the person isn't a statistician or a journalist. Your rebuttal should come from a scientist working in climate science.

*the use of the word "all" in this post is used as a lay person's term for "overwhelming majority" and is not meant tio imply that there isn't a very small minority of scientists who disagree with prevailing global warming theory. The use of the word "all" is also brought to you by your friends at General Motors - General Motors, building the cars for America's future.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?


Heh classic misinformation going on here. The poster poses the question above, and then shows us a graphic(no source BTW) of the Antartic. It's like asking if large parts of Eastern Britain are going to be underwater in say 100 years time, then what does this seemingly conflicting evidance about Australia mean.

Learn the differance between Artic(on the top of the globe) and Antartic(on the bottom of the globe) man!

Shh... it's consistent with global warming models.

There was a time when I would post links but thanks to recent technology, Google is available to all.

There was a time when I would post links but thanks to recent technology, Google is available to all.

Man you should still do tha for us lazy people!

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?

evidence of increased moisture over east antarctica, as was predicted by climatologists. see, it's warmer, so more water vapor gets into the air. but it's still fucking cold down there, so it falls as snow and thus increases the ice sheet a bit.

Man you should still do tha for us lazy people!

Mostly what I found was a bunch of PDF articles but seriously, just type the words "arctic thickening inland" into google and reap the benefits.

Learn the differance between Artic(on the top of the globe) and Antartic(on the bottom of the globe) man!

I know the difference between the arctic and the antarctic (learn to spell, by the way). I'm also pointing out that this anecdotal evidence is at least as convincing as the thinning ice in the western arctic.

Also, won't the increased snowfall also mitigate warming on its own by being white? Oh, right. We don't know, because the climate models don't account for changes in global albedo.

I know the difference between the arctic and the antarctic (learn to spell, by the way). I'm also pointing out that this anecdotal evidence is at least as convincing as the thinning ice in the western arctic.

Also, won't the increased snowfall also mitigate warming on its own by being white?

Sorry I have a problem with speiling, it not being one of me strong point etc...

However, if that is what you wanted to do why not pose the question in this manor:

If thining ice in the Antartic is evidance of global warming.......?

It makes about as much sense a bag full of left flops!

As I say classic misinformation.

Screw the polar bears, save the penguins!

:D


Maybe the Polar Bears should swim south for the winter :p

Also, won't the increased snowfall also mitigate warming on its own by being white? Oh, right. We don't know, because the climate models don't account for changes in global albedo.

yes they do

evidence of increased moisture over east antarctica, as was predicted by climatologists. see, it's warmer, so more water vapor gets into the air. but it's still fucking cold down there, so it falls as snow and thus increases the ice sheet a bit.

on the other hand, the west antarctic ice sheet is not sitting high and pretty on land like the eastern one, but is actually grounded on the sea floor for much of its area. thus the primary driver of it is actually sea temperature - and we know that the oceans have been acting as temperature sinks, keeping the air temp cooler than anthropogenic forcing would otherwise imply.

yes they do

Some people are stuck in 1990.

And yet they all* agree that global warming is happening, in fact they predicted it before it actually came true. They also all* agree that we are causing it. Please, when you post your reply about some guy here or there that disagrees, make sure the person isn't a statistician or a journalist. Your rebuttal should come from a scientist working in climate science.

*the use of the word "all" in this post is used as a lay person's term for "overwhelming majority" and is not meant tio imply that there isn't a very small minority of scientists who disagree with prevailing global warming theory. The use of the word "all" is also brought to you by your friends at General Motors - General Motors, building the cars for America's future.


It hasn't actually come true...depending on what you actually mean by come true. ~200 years is not enough, especially coming off the little ice age. I understand very well the difference between the opinions and nonscientists and scientists. Debates such as this one, between nonscientists, annoy me to no end. Better data is needed. The minority of climatologists who disagree with global warming is not such a small minority. It is a fairly large percentage. Many of these studies focus on a certain region, and global warming is the increase of the global Average. Some will show higher temperatures, and some lower.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=50 <---Scientists against global warming panic.


Sort of on/off topic, but the warm weather this winter does not prove global warming. I don't want to hear about that anymore on the news. One year does not constitute a trend.

Some people are stuck in 1990.

well, it was a good year, so we can't blame them entirely

well, it was a good year, so we can't blame them entirely

I don't know about that... I'd say things started to pick up in like '93. Wasn't '90 the year that brought us both Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer?

I don't know about that... I'd say things started to pick up in like '93. Wasn't '90 the year that brought us both Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer?

Well granted, but it was a hell of a lot better thanthe whole of the 80's.*shudder*

Well granted, but it was a hell of a lot better thanthe whole of the 80's.*shudder*

Agreed. '90 was the year that the tummy shirt for men officially died, so there is that major advancement in human history.

I don't know about that... I'd say things started to pick up in like '93. Wasn't '90 the year that brought us both Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer?

yep, 'twas the year of "u can't touch this" and "ice ice baby". also, the drunken exxon dude sailed his ship into alaska, and the united states started playing footsie with iraq.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?

proof global warming is a liberal myth?

proof global warming is a liberal myth?

Over 90% of scientists are NOT interested in science but in politics. It's a fact!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXvnACibVdk

proof global warming is a liberal myth?
Hey I thought Muslims were supposed to be on OUR side? How dare you agree with Bush!

proof global warming is a liberal myth?

An example of how people who don't like global warming for political reasons use certain facts to distort the science.

1. Global warming science predicts a thickening of parts of the polar ice sheets.

2. It happens.

3. People who want to cast doubt on the theory say, "See? The ice is thickening."

The perfect example of this is in this post. The OP posted the picture but not the accompanying article because if you just look at the picture without the article you get an incomplete set of facts that can be used to cast doubt on the theory. If it had been posted with the article you would have seen that this is a predicted result of global warming.

I don't know about that... I'd say things started to pick up in like '93. Wasn't '90 the year that brought us both Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Xielos/hammer.jpg

:p

Hey I thought Muslims were supposed to be on OUR side? How dare you agree with Bush!

hey I do believe in global warming. It was a suggestion, notice the question mark at the end.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Xielos/hammer.jpg

:pOh dear lord... this makes me laugh.

I'll just be in the corner overdosing on whatever drug is available.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/multimedia/050516-10-m1.html

If the thinning ice of the western arctic counts as evidence for global warming, what's this?

I don't buy the whole global warming nonsense anyway. I think it's just the environment going back and forth in cycles.

~ Romandeos.

I don't buy the whole global warming nonsense anyway. I think it's just the environment going back and forth in cycles.

~ Romandeos.

Meh, some people don't believe in evolution either so I'm not surprised by this.

I don't buy the whole global warming nonsense anyway. I think it's just the environment going back and forth in cycles.

~ Romandeos.Based on what? Your desperate desire for the world to work as you'd like it to? If that's the case, at least be clever-stupid & hope for improvement.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Xielos/hammer.jpg

:p
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/McHammer.gif

As for the thread - I don't see how this contradicts the other information I've read about the global climate change. Others have pointed out the reasons why already.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/McHammer.gif


http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/8238/hammertime9bh.jpg

yes they do
We've been over this before is disussions about cloud cover. Clouds have a net cooling effect because they are white, but the models don't account for cloud albedo. The climate models are absent cloud albedo feedbacks.

The Earth's albedo has been falling in recent years. This is a large component of current warming. However, significant increases in cloud cover would raise Earth's albedo, thus cooling the planet.

The average albedo of land is 0.16, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.50.
The average albedo of ocean is 0.08, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.44.

The influx of solar energy is 342 W/m². Changing the albedo of the ocean from 0.08 to 0.44 reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth's oceans (including the water, sea floor, and atmosphere) from 315 W/m² to 192 W/m². That's a huge difference, and far greater than the impact of greenhouse gases.

We've been over this before is disussions about cloud cover. Clouds have a net cooling effect because they are white, but the models don't account for cloud albedo. The climate models are absent cloud albedo feedbacks.

The Earth's albedo has been falling in recent years. This is a large component of current warming. However, significant increases in cloud cover would raise Earth's albedo, thus cooling the planet.

The average albedo of land is 0.16, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.50.
The average albedo of ocean is 0.08, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.44.

The influx of solar energy is 342 W/m². Changing the albedo of the ocean from 0.08 to 0.44 reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth's oceans (including the water, sea floor, and atmosphere) from 315 W/m² to 192 W/m². That's a huge difference, and far greater than the impact of greenhouse gases.

explain to me how you could possibly know any of this if it were true that the models didn't take albedo into account

We've been over this before is disussions about cloud cover. Clouds have a net cooling effect because they are white, but the models don't account for cloud albedo. The climate models are absent cloud albedo feedbacks.

The Earth's albedo has been falling in recent years. This is a large component of current warming. However, significant increases in cloud cover would raise Earth's albedo, thus cooling the planet.

The average albedo of land is 0.16, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.50.
The average albedo of ocean is 0.08, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.44.

The influx of solar energy is 342 W/m². Changing the albedo of the ocean from 0.08 to 0.44 reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth's oceans (including the water, sea floor, and atmosphere) from 315 W/m² to 192 W/m². That's a huge difference, and far greater than the impact of greenhouse gases.

As far as I can remember, climate models use separate numbers for surface albedo and cloud albedo. Cloud albedo is far too complicated for phrases like:
The average albedo of land is 0.16, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.50.
The average albedo of ocean is 0.08, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.44.
This is due to the fact that clouds do things like move and change colour. Even whether or not they have a net cooling effect is questionable, if I remember correctly.
Surface albedo is far simpler, as any colour changes are gradual, and the surface of the planet does not move chaotically relative to the sun, and I think climate models could easily account for that and do.

Tout ça pour dire: I would like to see a link discussing this.

We've been over this before is disussions about cloud cover. Clouds have a net cooling effect because they are white, but the models don't account for cloud albedo. The climate models are absent cloud albedo feedbacks.

The Earth's albedo has been falling in recent years. This is a large component of current warming. However, significant increases in cloud cover would raise Earth's albedo, thus cooling the planet.

The average albedo of land is 0.16, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.50.
The average albedo of ocean is 0.08, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.44.

The influx of solar energy is 342 W/m². Changing the albedo of the ocean from 0.08 to 0.44 reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth's oceans (including the water, sea floor, and atmosphere) from 315 W/m² to 192 W/m². That's a huge difference, and far greater than the impact of greenhouse gases.

So you think that climate scientists, people who have spent their whole lives studying the climate, know less about it than you? You think they would leave the albedo effect out of their models because they don't know as much abot how the climate works than you do?

We've been over this before is disussions about cloud cover. Clouds have a net cooling effect because they are white, but the models don't account for cloud albedo. The climate models are absent cloud albedo feedbacks.

The Earth's albedo has been falling in recent years. This is a large component of current warming. However, significant increases in cloud cover would raise Earth's albedo, thus cooling the planet.

The average albedo of land is 0.16, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.50.
The average albedo of ocean is 0.08, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.44.

The influx of solar energy is 342 W/m². Changing the albedo of the ocean from 0.08 to 0.44 reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth's oceans (including the water, sea floor, and atmosphere) from 315 W/m² to 192 W/m². That's a huge difference, and far greater than the impact of greenhouse gases.

Somebody in climate science does seem to be as well educated about climate as you.

http://www.realclimate.org/searchresults.php?q=albedo&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF% 3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B#957

How do we explain that the volcanic explosions of Mt. St. Helens in the US and Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines discharged hundreds of times the amount of green house gases that humans have produced over the last 100 years or so?

How do we explain that the volcanic explosions of Mt. St. Helens in the US and Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines discharged hundreds of times the amount of green house gases that humans have produced over the last 100 years or so?

We explain that through google searching and numerous past threads on the topic.

We explain that through google searching and numerous past threads on the topic.

but i want my trivially and obviously false rush limbaugh-based talking points from the early 90s to be as hip and relevant today as they ever have been...

How do we explain that the volcanic explosions of Mt. St. Helens in the US and Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines discharged hundreds of times the amount of green house gases that humans have produced over the last 100 years or so?

Just because some drunk guy told you that at a bar doesn't make it true. Source this, please. In anycase, the problem is not that there are greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Without them we would not be alive because the Earth would be ice locked. The problem is what we are contributing over and above the base. Periodic volcanic eruptions are included in the baseline of what should be in the atmosphere if the climactic conditions our civilization has become accustomed to persists. It's what we are adding to it over and above what nature puts there that is the problem.

Look at it like a pool. There is chlorine naturaly in water. When you fill your pool up from your hose the water is green with algea even though chlorine is present. Then a human comes along and pours more in than exists naturally and all eth algea dies and you get a clear pool.

With volcanoes and cow farts and people and animals breathing there is a certain level of CO2. When we dig up old carbon in the form of oil, natural gas and coal, carbon that has not been a part of the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years, burn it and put it back in the atmosphere that is where the problem lies.

Just because some drunk guy told you that at a bar doesn't make it true.

what if it was a junkie with a radio program?

what if it was a junkie with a radio program?

Then it is true.

but i want my trivially and obviously false rush limbaugh-based talking points from the early 90s to be as hip and relevant today as they ever have been...

I still tie a flannel around my waist now and then but Goddamnit, I know it is just not socially acceptable anymore.

When I was a boy I can remember tales of doom from the scientific community - only then it was the tale of we're going back into the ice age. I asked my dad about it (an electrical engineer at the time). He told me not to worry (actually I wasn't worried I was having visions of cancelled school and endless sledge rides) because "you always have to take things scientists tell you with a pinch of salt".

His reasoning for this was:

Some scientists are looking for an original and "exciting" topic for their thesis. Just because it is in their thesis doesn't mean it is going to happen.

Some scientists depend on research grants for a job - they tend to look into things that they are being paid to research and come up with whatever whoever is paying the bucks wants to hear.

Some scientists like to see their name "in lights". It a real big thrill for them to have their papers published. They like to write things on topics that are likely to get published.

Some scientist think if they can disprove other scientists work it'll get them just as much publicity and the claim and counter claim starts off a viscious circle.

When it comes to "earth sciences" and climate - it is only in it infancy and the current crop of scientists don't know diddly and it is mostly guess work going on.

This was just over 20 years ago now. I still think there is some credence to this. As such, I pay very, very little attention to scientific theories. That is what they are theories. And like most theories it'll be a very, very long time before most of them are ever proven/disproved.

Having said that, I do think it is a reasonable supposition that human activity can affect the climate. But, to be honest I don't give a flying fart. Why? Because we could all be wiped out by: Volcanic eruptions, Meteor/comet strikes, viruses, solar flares, world war III etc etc etc

If someone wants to sell me a pollutant free lifestyle, then fine. I'll buy into that, as long as it is just as good or better than my current lifestyle and it doesn't cost me any more than it does now.

I also find it laughable that a puny country like mine can think it can go all "let's save the planet" and think it can make a difference on its own and that anyone would take any notice (except to pee themselves laughing) and go "ooh look they've done it we'd better follow suit or we'll regret it"

Besides, I'm kind of looking forward to a mediteranian climate in England - it would be a small price to pay if London was to be flooded out and made uninhabitable as a consequence:cool: .

His reasoning for this was

crap

crap

Possibly so. However I am not trying to prove or disprove his reasoning. I was just remembering a childhood anecdote and not inviting comment on that.

What I was inviting coment on is the fact that I don't give a flying fart.

My reason for this is partly based on - I'm not a scientist and I can only give an opinion based on what I try to look up for myself. What I usually find is one bunch of scientists telling me "we are all doomed unless we do this that and the other" and then another lot of scientists telling me "no that's crap, this is correct". At the moment it seems as if it is 2-1 to those who believe we're all doomed.

So, I still don't give a flying fart and I'm going to buy some new sunglasses ready for when sunny days arrive in dear old Blighty :cool: .

Possibly so. However I am not trying to prove or disprove his reasoning. I was just remembering a childhood anecdote and not inviting comment on that.

What I was inviting coment on is the fact that I don't give a flying fart.

My reason for this is partly based on - I'm not a scientist and I can only give an opinion based on what I try to look up for myself. What I usually find is one bunch of scientists telling me "we are all doomed unless we do this that and the other" and then another lot of scientists telling me "no that's crap, this is correct". At the moment it seems as if it is 2-1 to those who believe we're all doomed.

So, I still don't give a flying fart and I'm going to buy some new sunglasses ready for when sunny days arrive in dear old Blighty :cool: .
Well, It'll be sunny until the Gulf Stream shuts down and makes us even colder.:eek:

Possibly so. However I am not trying to prove or disprove his reasoning. I was just remembering a childhood anecdote and not inviting comment on that.

What I was inviting coment on is the fact that I don't give a flying fart.

My reason for this is partly based on - I'm not a scientist and I can only give an opinion based on what I try to look up for myself. What I usually find is one bunch of scientists telling me "we are all doomed unless we do this that and the other" and then another lot of scientists telling me "no that's crap, this is correct". At the moment it seems as if it is 2-1 to those who believe we're all doomed.

So, I still don't give a flying fart and I'm going to buy some new sunglasses ready for when sunny days arrive in dear old Blighty :cool: .

It's more like 50 to 1 and they're not saying we're doomed, they're saying we could do a lot of damage IF we dont' do something about it. In any case, you may want to buy a good jacket to go with those sunglasses.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/32.jpg

That Europe's lands are so green and pleasant is largely due to the warmth of the Gulf Stream; we have been told that in school. Recently, however, the Gulf Stream made negative headlines: it was blamed for abrupt, drastic changes in Europe's climate throughout the last ice age. And the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in May this year raises concern that the ocean currents of the Atlantic might become unstable again, if humanity continues to meddle with the climate. A sudden shift in the currents could cool Europe by several degrees. How stable is the Gulf Stream, and is there really a risk that it might flip us into the cooler?
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_newscientist_1997.html

It's more like 50 to 1 and they're not saying we're doomed, they're saying we could do a lot of damage IF we dont' do something about it. In any case, you may want to buy a good jacket to go with those sunglasses.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/32.jpg


http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_newscientist_1997.html

Sorry "2-1 to ...." is a "soccer" euphemism (you'll have to get used to now that Beckham is heading west). It mearly means that I was trying to say the "doom mongers" are winning, but the opposition are not out of it and not that it should be taken as a literal figure.

As for not getting any sun..... aaargh!!!!

But I still don't give a flying fart - especially if London still gets it:eek:

I know the difference between the arctic and the antarctic (learn to spell, by the way). I'm also pointing out that this anecdotal evidence is at least as convincing as the thinning ice in the western arctic.

Also, won't the increased snowfall also mitigate warming on its own by being white? Oh, right. We don't know, because the climate models don't account for changes in global albedo.

Nice try.

Global albedo won't be affected if more snow falls in the Antarctic east. The sheet there will thicken somewhat, not appreciably grow in size. Any albedo gain will be countered and overwhelmed by albedo loss in the Arctic, as the North Pole becomes a place accessible only by boat.

Your rebuttal should come from a scientist working in climate science.


typical, no one else is allowed their say then?

so to comment on nazism i have to be a nazi?

We've been over this before is disussions about cloud cover. Clouds have a net cooling effect because they are white, but the models don't account for cloud albedo. The climate models are absent cloud albedo feedbacks.

The Earth's albedo has been falling in recent years. This is a large component of current warming. However, significant increases in cloud cover would raise Earth's albedo, thus cooling the planet.

The average albedo of land is 0.16, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.50.
The average albedo of ocean is 0.08, but with cloud cover that rises to 0.44.

The influx of solar energy is 342 W/m². Changing the albedo of the ocean from 0.08 to 0.44 reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth's oceans (including the water, sea floor, and atmosphere) from 315 W/m² to 192 W/m². That's a huge difference, and far greater than the impact of greenhouse gases.

For clouds to have any kind of cooling effect, they must effectively blanket the whole of the globe so that the greenhouse effect is cut off from hte outside. No sunlight getting in means no infrared getting in and no heat to radiate off the surface at night to be trapped by clouds. What you're describing would have to be at the level of the "nuclear winter" type of cloud cover from the aforementioned multiple nukes or a supervolcano (i.e. Yellowstone) or a significant asteroid strike.

How do we explain that the volcanic explosions of Mt. St. Helens in the US and Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines discharged hundreds of times the amount of green house gases that humans have produced over the last 100 years or so?

Please -- I beg you -- post any actual proof of this not powerpointed in your bedroom. Please. I can barely control my giggle reflex.

typical, no one else is allowed their say then?

so to comment on nazism i have to be a nazi?
Typical strawman.

I was pretty specific. I said that a large consensus exists amongst scientists who study climate about the reality of anthropogenic warming. If you are going to deny that a consensus exists, don't try to prove it by posting a dissenting view from an economist or statistician. I did not imply that you have to be a scientist to comment on warming or to express an opinion and anyone who reads the post that you quoted, including you, knows that. If you're going to attack my arguments, attack arguments that I actually made.

typical, no one else is allowed their say then?

so to comment on nazism i have to be a nazi?

Is it me, or has there been an epidemic of people using the Third Reich as a comparative lately?

No, sir, you needn't be a Nazi to comment on Naziism. However, to speak intelligently and authoritatively on the subject, you should certainly have studied it. "The Nazis were fuckers" is a perfectly viable layperson's opinion. What is it worth, though? Yes, everyone is allowed their say, but the say of someone who knows whereof he speaks is worth more than scores of bleatings from the reactionary and the undereducated.

typical, no one else is allowed their say then?

no, just that their say means fuck-all unless they can demonstrate that they have a single fucking clue as to what they are talking about

so to comment on nazism i have to be a nazi?

no. but you had better not go around saying that the nazis were bad because of what they did in the sacking of baghdad in 1258.

no, just that their say means fuck-all unless they can demonstrate that they have a single fucking clue as to what they are talking about



no. but you had better not go around saying that the nazis were bad because of what they did in the sacking of baghdad in 1258.

To comment on climate change you have to be a climate change! :mad:

Dont forget to add the media into the equation

<Headline writer> Greenland ice sheet to melt says scientist, sea levels to rise by 15 ft!!!!!!
<Editor> is it true?
<Headline writer> who gives a f*** if it sells the rag
<Editor> so what it about?
<Headline writer> This scientist guy says that over the next 1000 yrs, global warming will melt the ice sheet over greenland, thus raising sea level by 15 ft.
<Editor> so we getting all excited over 18 inches rise per 100 years when sea level has gone up by 14 inches since 1860 and nobody noticed?
<Headline writer> Posh and becks in gay sex romp!!!
<Editor> yeah thats the headline that WILL sell this rag

For clouds to have any kind of cooling effect, they must effectively blanket the whole of the globe so that the greenhouse effect is cut off from hte outside. No sunlight getting in means no infrared getting in and no heat to radiate off the surface at night to be trapped by clouds. What you're describing would have to be at the level of the "nuclear winter" type of cloud cover from the aforementioned multiple nukes or a supervolcano (i.e. Yellowstone) or a significant asteroid strike.
As the heat increases global humidity, the cloud cover will have growing negative feedback effect.

And yes, this would be very much like the nuclear winter scenario.

Plus, if we can get people to accept that blocking sunlight would cool the earth, perhaps we can get people to discuss space-based means of doing just that.

Somebody in climate science does seem to be as well educated about climate as you.

http://www.realclimate.org/searchresults.php?q=albedo&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF% 3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B#957
Yeah, find a study that claims to take the feedback effects of growing cloud cover into account. I only find studes that don't mention it at all, or admit they do no such thing.

And the heat increases global humidity, the cloud cover will have growing negative feedback effect.

And yes, this would be very much like the nuclear winter scenario.

Plus, if we can get people to accept that blocking sunlight would cool the earth, perhaps we can get people to discuss space-based means of doing just that.

Or we could give everyone a tin-foil umbrella to hold up on sunny days. They have other uses, too.

explain to me how you could possibly know any of this if it were true that the models didn't take albedo into account
Anyone with a high school education could calculate the amount of energy in a square metre of incidental sunlight, and then albedo is a straight percentage calculation.

The thing the models aren't projecting is how much cloud cover we might get.

typical, no one else is allowed their say then?

so to comment on nazism i have to be a nazi?

Godwin strikes again!

Godwin strikes again!

We have a winner! Greenhouse gas emissions cause Nazis.

Greenhouse gas emissions cause Nazis.
If that were so, I'd nuke the whole fucking planet till it glows a bright red and has not atmosphere left. Just to make sure. :mad: