Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (10188)	6/29/2009 10:06:10 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Lastly, we know temperature does drive climate change. Its one of the ghg's, but whether or not it drives climate change isn't actually known. Its such a small part of the atmosphere, its effect depends on what is assumed about feedback mechanisms resulting from changes in CO2. The IPCC models assume big positive feedbacks. But as per material I've posted here in the past, there's good reason to think the feedbacks are actually negative. A new 2009 paper finds that the crucial assumption in the GCM models used by the IPCC concerning strongly postive FEEDBACK from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the FEEDBACK is actually negative. ..... C. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978. ..... cei.org Message 25742613 A Layman's Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong May 29th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. .... So, I'm going to make yet another attempt at explaining why the computerized climate models tracked by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – all 23 of them – predict too much warming for our future. The basic problem I am talking about has been peer reviewed and published by us, and so cannot be dismissed lightly. ..... Thus, the most important debate is global warming research today is the same as it was 20 years ago: How will clouds (and to a lesser extent other elements in the climate system) respond to warming, thereby enhancing or reducing the warming? These indirect changes that further influence temperature are called feedbacks, and they determine whether manmade global warming will be catastrophic, or just lost in the noise of natural climate variability. ..... If negative FEEDBACK exists in the real climate system, then manmade global warming will become, for most practical purposes, a non-issue. But this is not how the IPCC thinks nature works. They believe that cloud cover of the Earth decreases with warming, which would let in more sunlight and cause the Earth to warm to an even higher temperature. (The same is true if the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases with warming, since water vapor is our main greenhouse gas.) This is called positive FEEDBACK, and all 23 climate models tracked by the IPCC now exhibit positive cloud and water vapor FEEDBACK. ..... We analyzed 7.5 years of our latest and best NASA satellite data and discovered that, when the effect of clouds-causing-temperature-change is accounted for, cloud feedbacks in the real climate system are strongly negative. The negative FEEDBACK was so strong that it more than cancelled out the positive water vapor FEEDBACK we also found. It was also consistent with evidence of negative FEEDBACK we found in the tropics and published in 2007. In fact, the resulting net negative FEEDBACK was so strong that, if it exists on the long time scales associated with global warming, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming by late in this century. .... drroyspencer.com Message 25720082