astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:30pm:



With respect, this eyewateringly ignorant and arrogantly, vehemently stupid statement sums up what's wrong with AGW proponets.

From recognising CO2 and methane and water vapor as greenhouse gases you and all other ignoramuses conclude that somehow you understand everything about how the entire global climate works to the extent that you are ready to make confident predictions. You just have no bloody notion of how little you know because the little bit that you may have grasped - or better, groped at- has filled your mind entirely.

You are bunch of smacking Alans and Jackies and Noels.





I don't mind ignorant people believing they know something. WHat I object to is their ignorance becoming the basis of far reaching government policy.

Soren wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:18am:


And for all your hand waving you can't actually explain why it isn't the "knob" that controls global temperature, obviously because you dont understand the issue beyond what you've been told by the likes of Andrew Bolt. But that is exactly what it is:

From the science literature:

From Science: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

From the American Chemical Society Carbon Dioxide As Earth’s Temperature ‘Control Knob’

And for the layperson;

From NASA: CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

And Discovery News: Atmospheric CO2: Climate's 'Control Knob'

yet despite that there is massive amounts of evidence to totally dispute it.

True, even when an advocate of global warming makes a presentation and advises you of what the global warmists are trying to deceive the people with.

The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.
The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.

Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.




But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.

the gullible gerties just hate it when facts are brought to the table as it destroys their whole scaremongering argument.

More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.

What is the net feedback from clouds?

The skeptic argument...

Clouds provide negative feedback
"Climate models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume that clouds provide a large positive feedback, greatly amplifying the small warming effect of increasing CO2 content in air. Clouds have made fools of climate modelers. A detailed analysis of cloud behavior from satellite data by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville shows that clouds actually provide a strong negative feedback, the opposite of that assumed by the climate modelers. The modelers confused cause and effect, thereby getting the feedback in the wrong direction." (Ken Gregory)

What the science says...
           
Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.

The effect of clouds in a warming world is a difficult one to predict.  One challenge is that clouds have both warming and cooling effects.  Low-level clouds in particular tend to cause a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight, while high-level clouds tend to cause a warming effect by trapping heat.

So as the planet warms, clouds can have a cooling effect if the amount of low-level clouds increases and/or if the amount of high-level clouds decreases.  Clouds will have a warming effect if the opposite is true.  Thus it becomes complicated to figure out the overall effect of clouds, because scientists need to determine not only if the amount of clouds increases or decreases in a warming world, but which types of clouds are increasing or decreasing.

For climate scientists who are skeptical that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will cause a dangerous amount of warming, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, their skepticism hinges mainly on this cloud cover uncertainty.  They tend to believe that as the planet warms, low-level cloud cover will increase, thus increasing the overall reflectiveness of the Earth, offsetting the increased greenhouse effect and preventing a dangerous level of global warming from occurring.  However, some recent scientific studies have contradicted this theory.

Most of the cloud feedback uncertainty is due to cloud changes near the equator, in the tropics and subtropics (Stowasser et al. 2006).  Studies by Lauer et al. (2010) and Clement et al. (2009) both looked at cloud changes in these regions in the east Pacific, and both concluded that based on a combination of ship-based cloud observations, satellite observations, and climate models, the cloud feedback in this region appears to be positive, meaning more warming.

Dessler (2010) used cloud measurements over the entire planet by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instruments from March 2000 to February 2010 to attempt to determine the cloud feedback.  Dessler concluded that although a very small negative feedback (cooling) could not be ruled out, the overall short-term global cloud feedback is probably positive (warming), and may be strongly positive.  His measurements showed that it is very unlikely that the cloud feedback will cause enough cooling to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.

So while clouds remain a significant uncertainty and more research is needed on this subject, the evidence is building that clouds will probably cause the planet to warm even further, and are very unlikely to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.  It's also important to remember that there many other feedbacks besides clouds, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is positive and will amplify global warming.

Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.

World temperatures haven't risen at all over the last 10 years but have declined. Global cooling! And that's from the source of the data!
Great news so no global warming and that's the facts.

In the last 30 years there's virtually been no change in the world's sea ice.
Another scam exposed.
Oh you can check this from the University of Illinois.

No increase on the US coast of land forming Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years

The combined frequency, duration & density of all hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones from around the world reached its lowest point in 30 years last year.






Notice how the scaremongering alarmists really are floundering when it comes to actual scientific facts.
Notice that the gullible gerties never check reports themselves, never go to the source of the data, instead rely on the scaremongering scammers.
It's quite amusing when the alarmist claims cherry picking by those that aren't fooled by the scam, yet he himself cherry picks. But the items he cherrypicks have been proved to be wrong.
And most interesting is that the gullible gerties campaigning about the scam don't know anything about global warming at all. Pretty much like on this board.