Baseless Speculations Involving the Consequences of Global Warming

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See the sentence after the bold.

I believe this is a statement about climate models having the heating and cooling effects of clouds cancelling each other out. I do not believe it is intended to be taken as a statement of fact. Are the heating and cooling effects of clouds balanced? What studies prove that?

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that you misrepresented (or misread) the guy's statement. Your summing up of his article doesn't relate at all to what he said. I was simply pointing out your glaring error.

Anyway, the reason clouds have no net effect is because of the effects of

(1) Blanketing. Clouds that reflect heat also keep it in at night. This accounts for about 2/3 of the discrepancy.

(2) Water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas that traps heat.

Interestingly, even the most ardent detractor of global warming states that clouds have no net effect. That's a pretty powerful statement. He's reduced to saying "well, the mean effect is zero, but there's some variability, so you never know! Clouds could slow the effects of carbon dioxide after all". That's some great logic. It could also go the other way, especially due to the warming feedback effect of increased water vapor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not attemptint to misrepresent anything. I think you took one sentence and put it out of the context it was used in to try and prove your point. I think the context it was used in was concerning climate models and the article was challenging their validity. Taken in that respect, I don't think I misinterpreted anything, either.

Can you please site an article by an ardent global warming opponent which concedes that the effect of clouds is a net zero effect in the heat cycle?

I did a little googling about clouds. The links are below. From the looks of things, more humid air at night would result in bouyant water particles which would lead to the formation of clouds which would block solar radiation in the day. I could be misrepresenting the science or misinterpreting it, though.

link 1

A little greenhouse thrown in for good measure.

A little primer about vaporization and affects of humidity and vapor bouyancy amoung other things.

Here's what Nasa says about clouds trapping heat.

I could be wrong, but I think a hotter, more humid climate would result in the formation of lower clouds, which are overall a negative energy balance.

I look forward to reading your sources.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heat makes Pat Robertson a global warming "convert"

[ QUOTE ]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said on Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.





"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said on his "700 Club" broadcast. "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air."





This week the heat index, the perceived temperature based on both air temperatures and humidity, reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the U.S. East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was "the most convincing evidence I've seen on global warming in a long time."





Last year, Robertson said natural disasters affecting the globe, including hurricanes Katrina and Rita that wrecked the U.S. Gulf Coast, might be signs that the biblical apocalypse was nearing.





The issue has divided conservative Christians.



[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly (and finally), common sense is beginning to prevail. I predict a major political shift as this issue will begin to erode at the right's political base unless they begin to address the problem.

164 dead in CA and counting...

[/ QUOTE ]

You kill all credibility for global warming when you claim this heat wave is a direct result of it. Same when everyone blames the increased number of hurricanes on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol