Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs



Page 6 of 6<<<456
18-01-2020 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Leitwolf wrote:
Just in case anyone is wondering where all this might lead us in the end, here is the straight forward conclusion with a beautiful point. We know for a lot of reasons named here that CO2 only plays a minor role in climate. Also we know that the sun largely controls the climate, with the coincidence of the Maunder-Minimum and the little ice age serving as an impressive show piece.

Furthermore this correlation between solar activity and global temperature goes well beyond such a singular event and matched very well up the 1970ies. Since then however something happened and Earth warmed for another reason, which can not be explained by solar activity, which indeed declined over the last years. Chart 1 shows this "departure"

Of course climatologists at this point would argue this was and can only be the effect of ever increasing CO2. But this claim is troubled, since by the 1970ies CO2 concentrations have reached some 330pm, about 50ppm above its "natural" level. With the diminishing returns of CO2 forcing, it should have warmed Earth by about half of what it does today. The CO2 theory simply fails to address why CO2 should only taken effect from the 1970ies onward.

As I have shown the GH-theory is fundamentally wrong in the way it accounts for clouds. It denies the warming effect of clouds and then wrongfully puts all the blame on GHGs, which only play a minor role in climate indeed. Clouds are warming in general, but high altitude clouds do even more so.

From the 1970ies on mankind is putting ever more artificial clouds into the higher troposphere (aka contrails), where they must cause significant warming. Chart 2 shows the development of global air travel. Pls note: pre-1970ies air travel contains a significant share of propeller driven aircraft which fly at lower altitudes and thus hardly cause contrails.

Finally if we combine solar activity with the effect of contrails we can perfectly explain why temperatures evolved how they did. Chart 3.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not even possible to measure the number and size of contrails in the sky, since jet aircraft don't always leave contrails.

No gas, vapor, solid, or liquid in our atmosphere has the capability to warm the Earth. There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth is made of many climates.


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2020 22:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth is made of many climates.


I may be wrong but I believe that our make and model of planet earth doesn't come with a "climate control" attachment. I honestly think there have been a lot of people who have unwittingly wasted a lot of their time proposing climate changes that the manufacturer never made possible.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-01-2020 05:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
First of all great post again. Thank you.
Leitwolf wrote:The CO2 theory simply fails to address why CO2 should only taken effect from the 1970ies onward.

Because of timing? If there is a delay in the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere making their full effect then from the 1970s on doesn't contradict that theory at all does it?

Leitwolf wrote:As I have shown the GH-theory is fundamentally wrong in the way it accounts for clouds.
Because it leaves them out of the equation too much right. Gives too much credit to non-cloud forcing. I think I'm following you.

Leitwolf wrote:
artificial clouds into the higher troposphere (aka contrails), where they must cause significant warming.
Why must ? Your whole thesis on clouds being discounted is that an error in scale has been made, that something too tiny, though real, is being given too much credit. I am not a cloud expert but when I look up I don't see contrails. Also all industrial activity as my graph shows correlates with air travel so that's not a way of parsing CO2 from contrails.

In looking into this I am surprised at how likely it seems you're right.

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/on-the-trail-of-contrails

"Würzburg, Germany, without contrails after air traffic was temporarily grounded in 2010. The image on the right shows the sky with regular air traffic"


" radiative forcing from contrails (CRF) during 2006 "

Seems like NASA is really looking at this.

Really a very interesting theory!

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
20-01-2020 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:The CO2 theory simply fails to address why CO2 should only taken effect from the 1970ies onward.

Because of timing? If there is a delay in the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere making their full effect then from the 1970s on doesn't contradict that theory at all does it?

There is no sequence. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 emitted by man or by natural sources. Fabricated numbers being used as 'data' again. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:As I have shown the GH-theory is fundamentally wrong in the way it accounts for clouds.
Because it leaves them out of the equation too much right.

What equation? Please write this equation. Show how it does not violate the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
Gives too much credit to non-cloud forcing. I think I'm following you.

Clouds are not a force.
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
artificial clouds into the higher troposphere (aka contrails), where they must cause significant warming.
Why must ? Your whole thesis on clouds being discounted is that an error in scale has been made, that something too tiny, though real, is being given too much credit.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
I am not a cloud expert but when I look up I don't see contrails.

Go stand near an airport on a humid day.
tmiddles wrote:
Also all industrial activity as my graph shows correlates with air travel so that's not a way of parsing CO2 from contrails.

Contrails are not CO2. They are simply water. They are clouds formed by the passing of an aircraft.
tmiddles wrote:
In looking into this I am surprised at how likely it seems you're right.

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/on-the-trail-of-contrails

"Würzburg, Germany, without contrails after air traffic was temporarily grounded in 2010. The image on the right shows the sky with regular air traffic"

NASA can't ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics either. They are making the same stupid argument you do.
tmiddles wrote:

" radiative forcing from contrails (CRF) during 2006 "

Clouds are not a force. Not even NASA can make them so.
tmiddles wrote:
Seems like NASA is really looking at this.

They are a government agency, following government agenda. Big deal.
tmiddles wrote:
Really a very interesting theory!

Not a theory. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. You cannot have a theory about what you cannot define.


The Parrot Killer
17-02-2020 03:34
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(112)
It just occured to me, that I incidently (sic!) solved the three big mysteries of "climate change" by the way.

1. This one I have already named. Anthropogenic warming only started in the 1970ies, far too late if CO2 was the cause. Anyone who has seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle" might remember that they tried to explain all warming by solar activity. Of course they failed in this, as they did not account for contrails (for a lack of knowledge). So they "swindled" themselves around the post 1970ies non-existing correlation.

2. Geographically global warming is not occuring evenly. Most warming happens indeed in the NH, a lot less in the SH and none at all on the South Pole, or rather Antarctica. The reason is quite obvious. Most air travel occurs in the NH, far less in the SH and there is virtually none over Antarctica. This could not be explained with CO2. (see Chart)

3. Another big mystery of "global warming" is the lack of the projected "hot spot". This describes a strong warming of the higher Troposphere over the tropics. It was expected since more heat means additional evaporation, more vapour in the air and, since vapour transports latent heat up the atmosphere thereby "flattening" the adiabatic lapse rate, higher temperatures at higher altitudes. All the models projected it, but it failed to show up. The linked image shows the extend of the problem..



The solution is actually pretty simple. Evaporation is not just a function of temperature or wind, but also of solar radiation itself. With contrails heating the surface while dimming the sun, they do not have much effect on evaporation. Overall it is likely even negative.
Attached image:


Edited on 17-02-2020 03:36
17-02-2020 04:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
Leitwolf wrote:It just occured to me, that I incidently (sic!) solved the three big mysteries of "climate change" by the way.

Please ignore the bucket of cold water I'm about to splash on your "insights." It is meant only as a courtesy intended purely out of respect and eagerness to teach.

[note: in English, we write "1970s" ... not "1970ies."]

Leitwolf wrote: Of course they failed in this, as they did not account for contrails (for a lack of knowledge).

There is no need to somehow "account" for contrails.

Leitwolf wrote: Geographically global warming is not occuring evenly.

There is no such thing as an "uneven" average. It takes a special kind of mathematical incompetence to say something that stupid. Of course I mean this in only the most respectful way.

Leitwolf wrote: Most warming happens indeed in the NH, a lot less in the SH and none at all on the South Pole, or rather Antarctica.

Planet earth is interconnected. You are describing an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Leitwolf wrote: Another big mystery of "global warming" is the lack of the projected "hot spot". This describes a strong warming of the higher Troposphere over the tropics.

... another egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Leitwolf wrote: It was expected ...

Science is not based on the subjunctive. If the expectation was something different ... then it is the expectation that is erroneous. Whatever hypothesis that generated that expectation is now falsified.

Leitwolf wrote: The solution is actually pretty simple.

There is no such thing as a solution sans any problem. You have presented no problem ergo there can be no solution.

Leitwolf wrote: Evaporation is not just a function of temperature or wind, but also of solar radiation itself.

Nope. Evaporation is a function of only temperature and wind.

Leitwolf wrote: Overall it is likely even negative.

How, pray tell, did you arrive at this probability?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-02-2020 19:37
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(112)
TSI / temperature relation
Attached image:

17-02-2020 19:38
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(112)
TSI + air travel / temperature relation
Attached image:

17-02-2020 20:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
Leitwolf wrote:TSI / temperature relation

We always have to keep in mind the following:




















































I believe I covered them all, but please let me know if I inadvertently missed one.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-02-2020 18:00
gfm7175Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(313)
My thoughts exactly, IBDaMann... My thoughts exactly.
18-02-2020 19:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
gfm7175 wrote: My thoughts exactly, IBDaMann... My thoughts exactly.

You get bonus points for paying attention. I originally had the following diagram explaining certain aspects of urine flow, just to see if anyone would notice and ask about it ... but I figured that would be a little over the top.




.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 6 of 6<<<456





Join the debate Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do CO2 Emissions Create More Clouds?12419-01-2020 23:09
Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change1006-11-2019 23:54
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds106-03-2019 22:01
High carbon dioxide could suppress cooling clouds, climate change model warns127-02-2019 20:54
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 20:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact