Posted on 10/30/2006 7:17:14 AM PST by cogitator
Cloud cover is not a forcing, it's a feedback.
Hmmm, it certainly isn't a feed back to the climate modelling the UN/IPCC uses in their assessments. The assumption in the GCMs is no change in cloud cover.
Change as a consequence of thermal effects are the only factor climate models deal with in the sense of "feedback." In the case of GCMs this tends to be mainly their consideration of water vapor as a feedback mechanism from evaporation and effects of thermal variation on ice flows affecting albedo, as opposed to the water droplets of clouds forming as a consequence of cosmic ray interactions which are not a "thermal" effect.
The case of cloud variations due to cosmic ray modulation, is independant of atmospheric thermal factors in the sense of "feedback" used in climate modelling reviewed and incorporated into the conclusions of UN/IPCC folks.
Any variation in clouds inducing a temperature change due to external cosmic ray flux becomes a thermal forcing and the change in heat balance as a consequence would theoretically feedback in the hypothesized atmospheric processes of the climate change models same as any temperature change due to CO2 as a thermal forcing agent.
In short cloud cover changes due to factors outside the atmosphere are very definitely treatable as a forcing just a metorice dust, and aerosols in general are perceived to be in climate models.
The feedback factors of climate models operate on atmospheric and surface thermal changes, not externally induced forcings such as the CR factors operating on cloud cover.
Our assessments differ. I think that analysis of Milankovitch forcing by Berger and Loutre is valid, and therefore there isn't any reason to be concerned about a glacial period that is in the distant future.
Hyping global warming and very ill understood and ill based non-science is hardly conducive to achieving such goals, infact can be quite counter productive in terms of actually turning good science and good policy away for lack of credibility in the "Global Warming" alarmists camp.
Well, our viewpoints on the credibility of the science have always been quite different. But I think that the environmental arguments are less weighty than the energy and security concerns vis-a-vis the nation's energy infrastructure.
that concern I can share and work toward correcting such through utilization of real energy alternatives such as nuclear power taking the place of fossil fuel energy dependence. ... I wholly subscribe to the idea that nuclear energy should have been implemented yesterday, and lacking such having been done, it is all the more important to do so now to relieve our dependancing on foreign sources of fossil fuels which impact both our economy and security in our dependance of foreign souces."
Total agreement here. As you might guess, I also favor development of biofuels -- but to get to a more stable energy system, utilzing tar sands, oil shales, and other sources may be necessary.
Global Warming hype through the UN/IPCC however is not the way to achieve either of the above for the reasons stated
Within a decade -- I hope we'll still be discussing this -- we'll know with considerably more certainty if it's hype or not.
No doubt about that!
I'll check the link; can't reply any more on Halloween.
I think that analysis of Milankovitch forcing by Berger and Loutre is valid,
And I figure the more moderna and best assessment of Muller and others of Milankovitch's choice of eccentricty as opposed to orbital inclination to be the valid assessment. The choice of Milankovitch in chosing eccentricty as a factor appear to be rooted mainly in a coincidental period of operation near 100kyrs as opposed to more likely factors involved in orbital inclination modulating the incidence of meteoric dust and particles distributed about the solar system mean orbit with a much clearer and more consistant period of operation.
Dust answers more for cloud formation and a much larger effect than the small variations of incideant solar radiation due to variations in distance from the sun in changes in eccentricty that are even out of phase with the proported effects not to mention totally inadequate to explain observed correlations with solar activity as opposed to variations in solar irradiance.
Your logical conclusion here is based on an inaccurate starting premise
Which starting premise is that? I base my estimates on the basis of the lack of modelling of significant factors beyond mere thermal feedback factors of indeterminate magnitude or sign.
I don't see any modeling for effects on cloud formation of meteoric dust intercepted due to changes in orbital eccentricity per Muller and others, nor any attempts to model the effects of electron interactions enhancing cloud formation due to decadal and millenial modulations of cosmic ray fluxes.
Remember it doesn't take much variation in cloud formation due to such effects to totally dominate Earth's thermal balance through changes in albedo. A mere 2% change in cloud cover due to such effects since the Maunder Minimum wipes out even the highest upper boundries of thermal variation left from which hypothesize CO2 effects as a consequence of incomplete climate modelling.
Merely assigning solar activity effects to variations in solar brightness simply leaves far to much slack in the models leaving the assessment of direct radiation effects of CO2 impacts wide open to overestimations with the broad range of uncertainty that current climate models leave wide open for specualative assignment to the inappropriate drivers.
As you might guess, I also favor development of biofuels -- but to get to a more stable energy system, utilzing tar sands, oil shales, and other sources may be necessary.
Then I would suggest you would do better to address those issues directly rather than trying to tie your kite on the "Global Warming" string.
In hanging on the Global Warming you only lose credibility due to the extreme tenor of its alarmists in exchange for more solid and acceptable arguments that would lead to substantive change towards your claimed strategic goals of national security and national economic health.
Even biofuels I will agree with you on insofar as such may be derived from cellulose waste products rather than usable food stocks. Dedicating arable acres to biofuels for the sake of such fuels, to the exclusion of that which could be used for food, would not however be too smart.
Remember pushing in the direction of cooling in terms of global climate change end up can reducing arable lands as opposed to increasing such which future generations also need.
can't reply any more on Halloween.
Yep, catching up with me here as well.
Respond with yah when I can. Unfortunately will probably be busy with appointments over the rest of the week as well. So it's pretty much catch as catch can where internet debate is concerned nowadays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.