Milankovitch Cycles, Space Dust, Global Warming

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But isn't that what what this article shows?

And;

But isn't that what what this article shows?

And;

It is water vaporers that will more than double the supposed effects of Co2.

Seems to me that is exactly what I have been saying, water vapors which make up 95% of the GHG's are a greater feedback and forcing factor than Co2.
So again from what I see in the article, how are we going to reduce H2o vapor and save the world?

Now that covers the mid Troposphere, but what about the Stratosphere?

Now I am going to state this badly, I am not sure exactly how to pose this as a question.

MM and IPD gives water vapor in the Troposphere a vector to create clouds,

MM and IPD is dust and can that dust draw water vapor up out of the Troposphere, to the Stratosphere, and higher?

Water vapor being identified from your citation as a major feedback factor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For god's sake man, it says CO2 is the initiator of the humidity that then "serves as a powerful mechanism", the CO2 gets it to this level - there is more than 1 feedback agent/system.
You can't possibly be someone who understands more about the carbon cycle and ocean dynamics than the person who published that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, that is something, that I have been trying to pointing out, that there are many feedback agent/system, and these are not fully understood, or included in research, because they are not even identified or their effects are not understood.

From my observation, all to often, a answer is decided on, and then the research is conducted to match the answer, rather than asking a question, and then go in search of not just of a answer, but the answer.

Now as to;

Exactly, it isn't my work, so I hope that the person who published this understand His work better than I do.

But that begs the question?, did He include all of the factors of the ecology that He claims is being effected, or all the feedback agent/system that act on the Ecology, to show that they have no major feedback effect on the the ecology.

 

"there are many feedback systems", ...check; "these are not fully understood"... check, nor is gravity or quantum mechanics.
You would think that, if this is really a big problem there would be more than ONE scientist looking at it, wouldn't you?

 

noodler and Trippy, here is a article that expresses much better than I can, where I am coming from in my qustioning of Anthropogenic causes for Global Warming.

All of these factors are and have been part of my thinking on the subject.

This is not my work, but it explains my thoughts.

http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2009/12/global-warming-the-problem-with-raw-data.html

December 07, 2009
Global Warming: the problem with raw data ...

I was asked by a friend if the reportedly missing “raw” data at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) is of major importance or is just part of a larger overall political kerfuffle in the media. As one who is intimately familiar with the processing of large datasets, I thought that I would take this opportunity to explain a few items.

One, data is not always pretty, normalized, consistent or reliable. Depending upon any number of factors, from the placement of instruments, their calibration status, the influences of temporary phenomenon, electromagnetic noise and, of course, human error, the data being used for computer modeling may contain data dropouts (missing data elements), outliers (readings which are obviously out of range of other observational data) and simply garbled results. When dealing with analog data that is being converted to digital formats, the problem of obtaining clean data is exacerbated.

Two, data may be so voluminous so as to preclude human inspection and verification in realistic time frames and within cost containment parameters. In some cases, a gross representation of the data may be generated in the form of a gridded graph in which the scaling methodology and factors may be manipulated to assist in the visualization of outliers – the data points which do not correspond with the central data trend.

Three, corrections to the raw data to prepare it for computational purposes may be done by hand or with an automated system that relies on algorithms which test or filter the data so as to achieve some factor of normalization. To note how each and every data point has been corrected in a table of anomalous behavior is preferred, but not always documented.

Four, some data points in and of themselves may not be relevant as one is attempting to determine trending information, averages, means and other statistical measures.

Five, complex computer programs juggling multiple variables do not always do what the programmer intended. Many years ago, I wasted a significant amount of computational time on a large IBM mainframe, not to mention a significant amount of money, trying to normalize a large dataset. I did not see the error of my ways until a colleague performed a walking/talking code review, asking me for each computer command, what I meant or intended. The problem was caused by a logic error in which I meant “and” but said to myself during coding “or” – thus allowing the so-called corrected data to be corrupted. I was overwhelmingly thankful to my colleague from sparing me from further stress and embarrassment. (Thanks once again to RRW) Combining multiple computer program modules each containing thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of code lines remains problematical. Thank heaven for colleagues and peers.

Six, the statistical manipulation of data may produce worthless results in terms of both correlation and causation. One could make the case that the data on dope addiction correlates well with those who were breast fed as babies, but to conclude that breast feeding is causal and leads to dope addiction is a major stretch. Likewise, the fact that the rising levels of atmospheric CO2 lag rising temperature levels by 600 –1000 years (depending on the dataset) suggests that CO2 is not causing warming, but may be a lagging symptom of warming. A reasonable explanation can be found in the outgassing of dissolved carbon dioxide in warming oceans.

Seven, most models are created to correlate well with historical or real-time data and when run forward in time may be assumed to have some predictive value. Such models are back-tested much as stock pickers test their systems on historic data. Inherently relying on the general correctness of observational test data. Unfortunately, sometimes all a computer model does is represent a portion of the story and by carefully selecting the input parameters and time frame, what looks like a realistic assessment of nature can be produced. Again, unfortunately, this may be somewhat like using a mathematical process (rules) that yield results which appear to look like shell patterns or leaves that can be found on trees. Does this mean that you have mathematically described the phenomena? Of course not. What you have is a representation of something that appears in nature. Tweaking the program’s parameters may produce other unusual shapes, but does this mean that somewhere in the physical world we should be searching for these patterns? I think not.

Eight, and most troubling of all, is the inherent bias of a research – which may be unconscious and unintentional – that leads to a favorable conclusion which seems to fit a groupthink narrative. One of the reasons science is not performed by consensus and that one releases their programs and datasets so others can confirm and enhance the understanding of the original work.


This can be illustrated by my cloud picture which represents nature’s most prevalent greenhouse gas: water vapor.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

People perceive patterns in clouds which were produced by a number of climatological conditions. There is no information inherent in a cloud and the only meaning that is derived is produced by a pattern recognition algorithm in the human brain

 

The objection to scientific consensus on global warming is political in nature, not scientific.

 

And from my reading there are a great many "SCIENTIST" looking into this, and disagreeing with Anthropogenic causation to Global Warming.

I only referenced 3 here,(which is more than one) but I have referenced many others, in other post and threads and a there are even more eminent scientist who do not ascribe to Anthropogenic causation to Global Warming;

http://www.sodahead.com/entertainme...-is-not-to-argue-for-or-agai/question-771163/

ARE ALL SCIENTISTS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING CONCEPTS This is not to argue for or against global warming, but to show that there are many of us who do not agree with the postulates as given.

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of 'negative discovery' - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled................


Signed by Science and Technology Experts well Qualified in Climate Science:
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand...................


------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Once Believers, Now Skeptics

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre

Crafoord Prize for geology in 1986, along with Gerald J. Wasserburg;
Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society of London;
Golden Medal of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

He is a member of:

French Academy of Sciences, elected member on 6 November 1995
United States National Academy of Sciences (foreign associate)

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists

1996 Wolf fondation award for excellence as PhD
1996 Lee A. DuBridge scholarship at Caltech
2000 Beatrice Tremaine scholarship in Toronto
2004 Siegfried Samuel Wolf lecture for nuclear physics

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans,

David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisor

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty

He has taken part in a review of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme , two organizations...
.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

Bryson was made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program in 1990

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it seem that I am not alone, and that many preeminent scientist have doubts on AGW as well, I may not always be able to clearly express what I am thinking, but I have information that is from eminent source.

And just like you, I must use a "Appeal to Authority" in the discussions on Global Warming, and those Authorities are not in consensus or agreement.

 

Consensus on global warming, is political in nature, not scientific.

 

Nope. We have known since the 1970's. The fact is there are trillions to be gained by corporate interests in the status quo. That's the only reason we are having this debate.

 

Now, again, this is something that has just recently been added.....articles and papers that I have read on this, mitigate if not out right ignore water vapor in favor of placing the cause of AGW on CO2.

This is one of the first article that has recognized Water Vapor and that it has a significant roll, but then drops right back to placing the major blame on CO2 as the major feed back forcing.

And correlation is not proof of causation.

Now how does CO2 control water vapor, what I see from what information I can find so far, that is not explained, .....so are we looking at.....correlation/causation?

Then what about, MM and IPD ?

Kortenkamp and Dermott/Muller and MacDonald

So you don't know, and haven't even looked into it.

Trippy, where are the articles on water vapor and it's connection to global warming before this article appeared, most articles and papers that I have read on this, mitigate if not out right ignore water vapor in favor of placing the cause of AGW on CO2.

Even in this article, which shows that water vapor is a major green house gas, still reverts to putting the major feedback as CO2, now I find this interesting as a opening statement to your citation;

To me this reads, that the answer is carbon dioxide is the cause of AGW, so now lets make the research fit the answer.

 

Really? since the 1970?

The fact is there are trillions to be gained by AGW interests in convincing the world to pay them to solve a problem that isn't proven as fact.

 

Weather predictions is straight forward? we are not talking about the weather.

And can they overcome that sensitive dependence on initial conditions?

Reference

 

Have other thing that need to be taken care of for a bit, will be back.

 

Hardly, do you have proof that the science behind climate research is a trillion dollar industry? If it is in fact a trillion dollar industry, then how do you square that with your notion that doing something about global warming will lead to economic disaster? You can't have both.

 

BR appears to have some kind of cognitive disconnect problem.
He's still asking about papers that "ignore" water vapor and "blame it all on CO2". The guy is nuts.

Water vapor in the atmosphere is a given, like say, gravity is a given if you want to build a rocket.
Even the idea that climate scientists or meteorologists "ignore" water vapor is downright debogglerizing... I'm trying to imagine someone ignoring getting wet when they stand in pouring rain, and it isn't happening! What am I doing wrong?