- Joined
- Feb 28, 2018
- Messages
- 1,709
- Reaction score
- 877
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Words have meaning. I've already cited the passages where the IPCC flatly rejected Svensmark's theories. Yet again, if you do not understand that very simple fact, it's not my problem.Words have meaning, A writer may choose to tighten or loosen the meaning with the syntax.
The statement, "A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation." does not exclude Svensmark's theories.
Oh, really?As your statements detail that you do not understand the basics of Svensmark's theories,
I have to wonder why you are arguing so vigorously that it cannot be a factor?
Oh, really? I presume that includes Svensmark's papers?Most papers are written rather loosely.
Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.There seems to be quite a bit of dependency on the roll that clouds play in Earth's energy balance.
Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.
Who said that? Oh, it was the IPCC. Which you quoted, over and over and over again. "In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."
I really love the fact that you've been hammering on about this for days, and then just drop it without a second thought. Based on a PowerPoint. In Comic Sans. Which explains the updates and corrections in v4 of the CERES data product. (I mean, really, do you even bother to look at what you're linking?)
I'm stating that the CLOUD lab at CERN has been operating for years, performing a variety of experiments. A handful of papers from CLOUD studies lend some support to the CR theory; most do not. The study I linked is one of the most extensive surveys of 10 years of data, and its conclusion is that CR variability has a negligible effect on the climate overall.
Please, spare us the conspiracy theory nonsense. We could just as easily say that the researchers who are funded by fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks (e.g. Shaviv <--> Heartland) are equally compromised.
The evidence is in the linked article, which apparently you didn't read. Impressive.
There seems to be quite a bit of dependency on the roll that clouds play in Earth's energy balance.
The CERES satellite was launched to measure some of these things directly.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
The Global Mean TOA Flux (Wm-2) Ed2.8
March 2000 – June 2015
All sky NET 0.60 Wm-2
Clear Sky NET 21.7 Wm-2
The all sky included clouds, the clear sky, is sort of self explanatory.
It sure looks like the clear sky TOA net FLUX is 36 times greater than the all sky,
I.E. Clouds drop the amount of net FLUX by a large number.
Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.
Who said that? Oh, it was the IPCC. Which you quoted, over and over and over again. "In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."
I really love the fact that you've been hammering on about this for days, and then just drop it without a second thought. Based on a PowerPoint. In Comic Sans. Which explains the updates and corrections in v4 of the CERES data product. (I mean, really, do you even bother to look at what you're linking?)
Posted by Longview, post 671 ;There seems to be quite a bit of dependency on the roll that clouds play in Earth's energy balance.
The CERES satellite was launched to measure some of these things directly.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/document...TOA_Update.pdf
The Global Mean TOA Flux (Wm-2) Ed2.8
March 2000 – June 2015
All sky NET 0.60 Wm-2
Clear Sky NET 21.7 Wm-2
The all sky included clouds, the clear sky, is sort of self explanatory.
It sure looks like the clear sky TOA net FLUX is 36 times greater than the all sky,
I.E. Clouds drop the amount of net FLUX by a large number.
Words have meaning. I've already cited the passages where the IPCC flatly rejected Svensmark's theories. Yet again, if you do not understand that very simple fact, it's not my problem.
Oh, really?
Tell us all then, what exactly are Svensmark's theories? And how am I mischaracterizing them?
CRs (from outside our solar system) are a fraction of the effects of solar irradiation.
And solar irradiation is (in the view of the IPCC) a tiny amount of the variation in global temperatures.
IPCC explicitly ruled out Svensmark's theories as having an effect.
Baede in 2001 says we have a limited understanding about clouds and radiation (They did not say heat).Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.
Who said that? Oh, it was the IPCC. Which you quoted, over and over and over again. "In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."
I really love the fact that you've been hammering on about this for days, and then just drop it without a second thought. Based on a PowerPoint. In Comic Sans. Which explains the updates and corrections in v4 of the CERES data product. (I mean, really, do you even bother to look at what you're linking?)
I have heard numbers for average cloud coverage, but without a link, it would only be my poor memory.What proportion of the earth has clouds at any one time and are all clouds having similar effects?
Jack Hays, did you see this?
Science Daily
The missing link between exploding stars, clouds, and climate on Earth
Excerpt:
Breakthrough in understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth's cloud cover and thereby climate
December 19, 2017
Technical University of Denmark
Summary:
The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei -- the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere.
LINK
I know this is hard for you, but... read the entire paragraph. It's talking about infrared radiation. That's heat.Baede in 2001 says we have a limited understanding about clouds and radiation (They did not say heat).
If you had done more than a quick glean, you'd realize that the document you linked does not draw conclusions about CERES data. What it does is show the differences between 2.8 and 4.In 2016 (only 15 years later) we have some actual measurements of energy in and out from a satellite,
which is you had bothered more than a quick glean would have seen the statement,
EBAF-TOA Ed2.8 (Current Version), but it makes little difference.
I know this is hard for you, but... read the entire paragraph. It's talking about infrared radiation. That's heat.
I mean, seriously, what do you think they're talking about? X-rays? Microwaves? Gamma rays?
If you had done more than a quick glean, you'd realize that the document you linked does not draw conclusions about CERES data. What it does is show the differences between 2.8 and 4.
And yes, that means that 2.8 is the older version, which was replaced by version 4. You can see this on the NOAA Data Quality Survey page, for example:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/dqs.php
I mean, seriously. What does it say on the first page? CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) - TOA Edition 4 Update (Emphasis added).
Someone has to analyze the CERES data, and see if or how it correlates to temperature variations on regional and/or global levels and/or different strata (e.g. ocean, land, troposphere etc). Here's an example of that type of work:
Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth - Trenberth - 2015 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library
I know this is hard for you, but... read the entire paragraph. It's talking about infrared radiation. That's heat.
Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with longer wavelengths than those of visible light, and is therefore invisible to the human eye. It is sometimes called infrared light. It extends from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at 700 nanometers (frequency 430 THz), to 1 millimeter (300 GHz)[1] (although specially pulsed lasers can allow humans to detect IR radiation up to 1050 nm.[2][3][4][5]). Most of the thermal radiation emitted by objects near room temperature is infrared. Like all EMR, IR carries radiant energy, and behaves both like a wave and like its quantum particle, the photon.
In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object
I enjoyed the paper, but noticed they used the CERES ED2.8.
I have to wonder why, if the empirical data is implying cooling, it must be biased?Figure 1 presents the mean annual cycles of TOA net radiation for CERES and ERA-I both
for total and estimated clear-sky radiation. Fasullo and Trenberth [2008a, 2008b]
analyzed the annual cycle in considerable detail. CERES EBAF values are 1 to 3 W m−2 higher
than ERA-I values for the total, but several W m−2 lower for clear sky (Figure 1).
These should be considered biases in the ERA-I for the most part
[Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013a]—otherwise, the TOA net radiation from ERA-I implies global cooling.
Yes, they did. Twice. I already identified the relevant sections, and cited parts of those passages. It is screamingly obvious you haven't read either the passages or my citations. FAIL.The IPCC does not flatly reject Svensmark's theories....
sighHow have you characterized Svensmark's theories, well let's see?
In Post #644 you said...
Uh, no. Neither I nor the IPCC claimed that GCRs affect solar irradiation, or that GCRs are an "external heat source." Not even remotely close.Svensmark's theorie is not that cosmic rays are effecting solar irradiation,
but rather that changes from the sun regulate the amount of cosmic rays that can enter the atmosphere.
Your and through your inference the IPCC's position is that CRs are a very small external heat source,
Svensmark's theorie is solar changes cause cosmic rays to be like an inverting amplifier.
Actually not so subtle of a difference.
If you don't get what I am saying by now, you never will!Yes, they did. Twice. I already identified the relevant sections, and cited parts of those passages. It is screamingly obvious you haven't read either the passages or my citations. FAIL.
sigh
Svensmark's theory is, in a nutshell: "More solar wind = less GCRs = less clouds = hotter atmosphere."
(We should note, yet again, that this has resulted in him making busted predictions, such as saying in 2009 that "the next 10-20 years will be cooler;" in fact 4 of the hottest years on record happened after 2009. Anyway....)
Since you need me to clarify #644:
• Svensmark is not actively working (at this time) on measuring the effects of cloud cover on temperatures. As best I can tell, he's relying on other research for this claim. I.e. his work does NOT address the uncertainty identified in that one quote (which you now seem to have abandoned, ooops).
• Svensmark isn't talking about feedbacks. He is not, for example, saying that "hotter atmospheric temperatures causes more vapor, which makes the atmosphere more sensitive to GCRs, which causes more cloud formation." That would be a feedback. He's talking about a forcing mechanism -- i.e. something outside the environment which forces changes in the climate. (In this case, "more GCRs = more clouds = lower temps.")
• I was trying to point out that the amounts of GCRs are a fraction of that of solar irradiation. Thus, it is likely that the effects of GCR are quite small, almost certainly dwarfed by variations in solar activity -- which is also quite small. (Hence the poor correlations between GCR flux and temperatures.) Now, I will agree that I didn't phrase this well, but I certainly did not say that "Svensmark is saying that GCRs directly increase temperatures." Nor, AFAIK, has Svensmark ever proposed that theory.
Uh, no. Neither I nor the IPCC claimed that GCRs affect solar irradiation, or that GCRs are an "external heat source." Not even remotely close.
You would have know that if you actually read the IPCC docs, or the parts I keep citing.
Yes... that's because... the paper was written in 2015... and the 4th Edition of CERES was issued around October 2016... as it says in the Comic Sans Powerpoint.I enjoyed the paper, but noticed they used the CERES ED2.8.
OK, I'm going inI have to wonder why, if the empirical data is implying cooling, it must be biased?
Yes... that's because... the paper was written in 2015... and the 4th Edition of CERES was issued around October 2016... as it says in the Comic Sans Powerpoint.
OK, I'm going in
This is what they are actually saying.
A brief examination of the TOA radiation is first given for ERA-I versus CERES. Figure 1 presents the mean annual cycles of TOA net radiation for CERES and ERA-I both for total and estimated clear-sky radiation. Fasullo and Trenberth [2008a, 2008b] analyzed the annual cycle in considerable detail. CERES EBAF values are 1 to 3 W m−2 higher than ERA-I values for the total, but several W m−2 lower for clear sky (Figure 1). These should be considered biases in the ERA-I for the most part [Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013a]—otherwise, the TOA net radiation from ERA-I implies global cooling. Nevertheless, the time series of global anomalies (Figure 2) show very good agreement in most of the month-to-month variability that reflects the weather variations in clouds for the most part. The overall monthly correlation is 0.79 (5% significance level is 0.18). (Emphasis added)
That means:
• There is a discrepancy between the CERES and ERA-I data
• They wrote a paper in 2013 which talks about this issue (fyi it's that there is some data in ERA-I they regard as spurious)
• If you don't adjust for this, you're going to read the data incorrectly (i.e. if the data shows cooling, when empirical observation shows warming, you can deduce that there's an error somewhere)
• All that being said, ERA-I is very good, the discrepancies are quite small, ERA-I and CERES almost always agree, and the month-to-month correlation of ERA-I and CERES is 0.79 (and yes, that's pretty good... it's like saying they agree 90% of the time)
Got it?
Have you actually read the IPCC's comments on Svensmark, in the 3rd and 5th Reports?If you don't get what I am saying by now, you never will!
If you don't get what I am saying by now, you never will!
I can only say we still do not know all the variables that go into our climate,
and CO2 is only one of many.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?