âClouds cause warming, and they cause cooling on Earth,â said Abbot, an assistant professor in geophysical sciences. âThey reflect sunlight to cool things off, and they absorb infrared radiation from the surface to make a greenhouse effect. Thatâs part of what keeps the planet warm enough to sustain life.â - See more at: http://news.uchicago.edu/article/20...ts?utm_source=newsmodule#sthash.0HYqoLqr.dpuf since the study cited by the article... http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/771/2/L45/ hey fc and stu... this study has three main authors does that mean the consensus is down to 93 or 94 %. What a bunch clowns you agw nutter liars are turning out to be... so quickly. The habitable zone (HZ) is the circumstellar region where a planet can sustain surface liquid water. Searching for terrestrial planets in the HZ of nearby stars is the stated goal of ongoing and planned extrasolar planet surveys. Previous estimates of the inner edge of the HZ were based on one-dimensional radiative-convective models. The most serious limitation of these models is the inability to predict cloud behavior. Here we use global climate models with sophisticated cloud schemes to show that due to a stabilizing cloud feedback, tidally locked planets can be habitable at twice the stellar flux found by previous studies. This dramatically expands the HZ and roughly doubles the frequency of habitable planets orbiting red dwarf stars. At high stellar flux, strong convection produces thick water clouds near the substellar location that greatly increase the planetary albedo and reduce surface temperatures. Higher insolation produces stronger substellar convection and therefore higher albedo, making this phenomenon a stabilizing climate feedback. Substellar clouds also effectively block outgoing radiation from the surface, reducing or even completely reversing the thermal emission contrast between dayside and nightside. The presence of substellar water clouds and the resulting clement surface conditions will therefore be detectable with the James Webb Space Telescope.
just more info consistent with the fact that CO2 levels trails temps. its looking more and more like man made co2 is such an small probably insignificant part of greenhouse gas. Does it really surprise you that the science is now showing its the clouds which are leading global warming and cooling?
Dr. Spencer... seems to include something for both sides of the debate in his summary. http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/ Concluding Remarks Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on averageâ¦but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain. The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small âpokeâ is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have). So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists! Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase. Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, âwe donât really knowâ, rather than mislead people with phrases like, âthe warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2″, and then have the public think that means, âwe have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2″. Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.
CO2 lags temps, except when it leads temps. CO2 levels and temperature are codependent. Everyone with more than half a brain knows that. It's simply a fact. Because, you see, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
if you could show that you would be a nobel prize winner. don't you get tired of bullshitting your ass off. Show us that CO2 cause warming on earth you lying leftist drone. this is where fc cues up his leftist drone b.s. cue.... for the 40th time... chart which actually shows co2 lagging temps... but looks scary. or other leftist al gore baloney which substitutes for science... or failed models... with failing projections. or name calling... prediction you will not see science showing co2 causes warming on earth.
fc just sucks as a human. He never got it, the human part.. we had one guy on these forums that posted 30,000 times, largely how he hates religious people. It was because he's a molester and they say he can't do that. FC is in a similar category.. Maybe somebody pays him by the word and it doesn't matter if the audience is large or small?
It would be harder to prove that man made co2 isn't causing global warming, or that its affect is probably only small and insignificant, as you believe. There is new research being done with core samples taken from various spots on the globe in which we are examining climate history. It may very well point out that this may be the only time in earth's history when climate has changed so drastically in such a short period, without being accompanied by a global natural event, such as volcanism, or meteor impacts. If this turns out to be the case, it would be hard to argue that man made co2 isn't the cause of such a rapid change. Or What else do you think could cause such a sudden shift? It could perhaps be a more prevalent emergence of one of the other greenhouse gases, but What would be causing that, and Which gas is the culprit? It could also be that we are still new at testing our fancy gauges that determine heat, distance and other astronomical factors. Maybe after a few more decades or centuries we will see that our orbit shifts or wobbles on a longer scale, or that the sun's and other stars' energy output may have natural fluctuations that we are currently unaware of. It's pretty certain for now, though, that barring ancient advanced civilizations and unknown ancient life forms, that at no other time in history has so much co2 ever been pumped into the atmosphere by one species on a yearly basis. Seems awfully coincidental that the Earth's temperature is rising too.
LOL. That reminds me of, "I voted for the $87 billion appropriation before I voted against it." ~ John Kerry But, CO2 ALWAYS lags temperature because it has little if any effect on temperature at 3 or 4 parts per 10,000.