You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate models underestimate cooling effect of daily cloud cycle
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
I know a hell of a lot more than you, me old china!! There are many sources saying much the same thing, they are covering themselves in classic time honoured fashion.
Climate models take precious little account of the effects of cosmic rays, solar winds or aerosols on cloud formation, the Sun's magnetosphere or indeed solar variability in general. If you were anything other than an alarmist, who is impervious to new empirical data, then you'd acknowledge that. I also deplore the way that the media, politicians and eco-warriors have attempted to commandeer climate science, sadly you are doing much the same.
https://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/ecff81870e18ea3c6fb4b9aad1a48acf
The first source does nothing to negate my point as stated by the first two authors, "the researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for ...... cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections," a point you are implying isn't true
And the second source does even come in unless you want to obtain a subscription
As usual, you cherrypick all these studies, or info off of Flat Earthers websites, and either portray them improperly as game changers, as you have done here, or, attempt to past them on as established fact
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The first source does nothing to negate my point as stated by the first two authors, "the researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for ...... cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections," a point you are implying isn't true
And the second source does even come in unless you want to obtain a subscription
As usual, you cherrypick all these studies, or info off of Flat Earthers websites, and either portray them improperly as game changers, as you have done here, or, attempt to past them on as established fact
What are you going on about ffs? The CLOUD experiment at CERN has been going for a few years now and is turning up more and more experimental data all the time. Jasper Kirkby is a British scientist and I attended a lecture some time back by him in London, he is a brilliant man and a great physicist. As for the Australian, yes you're right about that, so here is another link. Now tell me that Nature is a flat earther site!!
Can you tell me why you will take as gospel the results from climate models, yet dismiss real experimental data out of hand? This tells me that you are more driven by confirmation bias and politics than science. I doubt if the names Jasper Kirkby and Henrik Svensmark mean anything, you seem to get your info from blogs like DeSmogBlog, Hot Whopper and Skeptical Science.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It is painfully obvious to me that you've no idea who Jasper Kirkby or Henrik Svensmark are, or have any idea about the impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation. It is therefore totally pointless attempting to engage such an ignoramus.Good Nature article. I'm glad Haveanypoon? posted that.
It noted that this won't change the projections of warming, or if so, scant little.
But anything tht ameliorates the destruction is welcome information.
Thanks Whorevany Poon!
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Is that where you go to get some rough trade? I bet you spent all day trying to come up with a name, you're a truly sad excuse for a man.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
What are you going on about ffs? The CLOUD experiment at CERN has been going for a few years now and is turning up more and more experimental data all the time. Jasper Kirkby is a British scientist and I attended a lecture some time back by him in London, he is a brilliant man and a great physicist. As for the Australian, yes you're right about that, so here is another link. Now tell me that Nature is a flat earther site!!
Can you tell me why you will take as gospel the results from climate models, yet dismiss real experimental data out of hand? This tells me that you are more driven by confirmation bias and politics than science. I doubt if the names Jasper Kirkby and Henrik Svensmark mean anything, you seem to get your info from blogs like DeSmogBlog, Hot Whopper and Skeptical Science.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
Never challenged any sites, rather, the fact you seem to keep avoiding, "researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for ...... cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections."
Then you go again and do exactly as I predicted, cherry pick an article or an individual's study and portray it as game changer negating everything we know about climate change
And the "gospel" that I use to formulate an opinion largely comes from those that actually have to work with the realities of climate
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/01...ors/listen-to-the-military-on-climate-change/
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Never challenged any sites, rather, the fact you seem to keep avoiding, "researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for ...... cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections."
Then you go again and do exactly as I predicted, cherry pick an article or an individual's study and portray it as game changer negating everything we know about climate change
And the "gospel" that I use to formulate an opinion largely comes from those that actually have to work with the realities of climate
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/01...ors/listen-to-the-military-on-climate-change/
The Bangor Daily News, are you being fucking serious? Anyway I have tired of you, you're just not very clued up and savvy.
The Bangor Daily News, are you being fucking serious? Anyway I have tired of you, you're just not very clued up and savvy.
You aren't "tired," you just can't exchange nor keep up, and it is on your own topic, funny
"The U.S. military is very worried, and has been for years."
"In 2007, when George W. Bush was president, a military board produced the report National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. It affirmed that “climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability … and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States.”
"The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report by the Department of Defense termed global warming “an accelerant of instability or conflict.” Dozens of other reports have expounded on this threat."
"The last five secretaries of defense, starting with Bush’s Robert Gates, have urged government action on global warming. In testimony to Congress in 2017, Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis called climate change “a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of-government response.”