sort by best latest
Clouds are complicted. Low cloud tends to cool, as you describe; but high, thin cloud tends to warm. And of course there are many types of cloud in between. This is one of the knottiest areas to understand.
UK Guardian article 2/1/10: Leaked Climate Change emails Scientist 'hid' data flaws. NASA study 2011: Mass Balance of the West Antarctic Ice-Sheet from the IESat Measurements. Solar cycle in max right now (7-9) years. Solar energy/flares high=heat.
Keep looking, Eric--the Guardian charges were not substantiated upon investigation. The mass balance study shows less ice loss during 2003-2008 than the preceding period. But, like the solar cycle, so what? 40 years of warming is real.
Although some would have you believe otherwise, the reality is that the current warming has nothing to do with recovery from the last Ice Age; the height of the interglacial warming came ca. 8,000 years ago. It'd been cooling since, til recently.
Then what does the current warming has to do with? Some blame fewer clouds. Apparently, more clouds cause the planet to become cooler. Just a 1% difference in the clouds per year changes the planet temperature.
The current warming is mostly to do with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are due to human emissions. CO2 is up 40% from pre-industrial concentrations. Other GHGs are up, too.
Have you seen the climate history for the entire planet's history? Not just up until the Middle Ages as most maps are. The planet has been much hotter without us even being here. So why should we worry about this?
Because we--and the current ecosystems--aren't adapted to those hotter conditions. And the rate of change allows little time to adapt.
I also believe that the "Global Warming" is one of the myths. Looking in short range (100 years back) it does seem like warming. However comparing to what we had 500-600 years ago - today is a global chilling.But we still have to care about nature
With the rules of evolution, or what I consider of all life, if you don't adapt you die. Humans are hell bent on surviving. Even if we live underground, we will live.
Andriy--Careful study of 'proxy records'--things like ice cores, coral, stalactites, boreholes among others--makes it very clear that today's warming is unprecedented within the 1-2 millennia.
lburmaster--R U serious? Who wants to live underground?
My point is that we will survive and don't always have to change everything. Sometimes it is better to see how the world plays out.
But we ARE changing something. I am advocating that it is in our best self-interest to stop doing so.
I can partially agree. However, I doubt we can completely brush away our footprints. We have too many people to make it easy.
Very true. Achieving a sustainable economy is no small challenge, which just makes it more urgent.
Eric, 'meteorologist' covers a lot of folks... many, basically TV presenters. The "1% claim" is a clear tip-off that your presenter didn't know whereof he spoke, as such precision in attribution isn't possible. Please seek out reliable information!
So the ones that believe in global warming are correct and those that don't are wrong? Like Al Gore who has had half of his 'facts' disproved since his sham An Inconvenient Truth? And the British university that falsified their data? Wake up.
AIT is substantially correct, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia did NOT falsify data--though that claim has been incorrectly made. Again, please seek reliable information.
U win. Now what we must all do 1st is stop using computers, video games, IPads, smart phones, etc. They all generate heat and use electricity, 50% of which is from coal plants. One car per household only. Otherwise, we are all hypocrites.
U forgot the sarcasm icon! But it's precisely because the challenge is not easy, that we need to get serious about meeting it. One credible estimate--the Stern report--said 5% of GDP, which should leave some room for computers (and us) to survive.
Doc, I wasn't being sarcastic. Sacrifice needs to be done by all; not merely when its convenient. Notice that the elite advocates of global warming burn the most fossil fuels. Have you checked out HAARP? Go to YouTube and do a search.
Eric, I don't think that "advocates of global warming"--meaning, I presume those concerned about it--are much aligned with "elites" in the economic sense. Scientists as a class are solidly *middle* class, economically speaking.